This is an archive of past discussions with User:GoneIn60. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello GoneIn60. The reason why I singled out Banshee for the coasters that have a Pretzel Knot is because Banshee is currently the only coaster operating to feature one. I realize many people refer to it as a Batwing, but the way the entrance and exit of the inversion is formed is supposed to make it look like a Pretzel. I use RCDB for this stuff. I will also update the description of the Pretzel Knot on how it's different from a Batwing. Thanks. Tjkovack (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Mentioning abbreviations in lead
Hi GoneIn60,
I noticed the partial revert you did on the article of Halo: The Master Chief Collection. What I meant with my edit summary, the "not used at all" bit, was that we do not use abbreviations or common names throughout articles, so there is no reason to mention that in the lead. Take for instance Grand Theft Auto V, though it's safe to assume dozens of websites, magazines, TV programs call it GTA, in the article the only use of GTA is for GTA bucks, the in-game currency. There were several discussions about stuff like this at WT:VG, I could look them up if you need more convincing. Kind regards, --Soetermans. T / C23:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
P.S. You also re-capitalised the m for multiplayer in the infobox (see WP:MOSCAPS).
@Soetermans: Thanks for leaving me a note. I thought about it shortly after reinstating the abbreviation, and I actually agree it should be removed in light of the fact that it doesn't appear in the body of the article. As for "multiplayer", I had initially re-capitalized it based on the way it was presented in a few other game articles, but after reviewing the guideline's recommendations for list items, I also agree it shouldn't be. I'll undo both. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.
The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.
You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.
We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.
Just curious, isn't it better to leave the statement out? It definitely not at the museum. The ride was sold on [1] but the page isn't up anymore because it was sold. And the park even told CW Mania they had a seller (there was also a a member on CW Mania that had to operate the coaster for the Italian buyers). I think its better to leave it out because we technically don't know if its at the museum OR in Italy.--Dom497 (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@Dom497:Totally understand where you're coming from, and I don't doubt that you're correct. However, the reliable source in the article states that after its dismantling, "Parts of the ride are being shipped to the National Roller Coaster Museum in Arlington, Texas." Now obviously if you're right, plans changed from the time of this source's publishing. However, it's not incorrect to say that was the intention. I'll reword it in the article for now, and then we can modify or delete it altogether later when another source is found. Sound reasonable? --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello GoneIn60, I will appreciate your help with an edit dispute. I have attempted to clean up the atrocious grammar and other violations on the Melissa McBride article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards, but user Alrofficial has continuously reverted my edits. Would you be so kind as to do the appropriate edits yourself or at least revert the page to my most recent edits? The article is very short and will be easy to edit. As you know, McBride plays one of the main characters of the wildly popular "The Walking Dead", whose other lead actors (Andrew Lincoln, Norman Reedus, Chandler Riggs, etc.) have high quality Wiki articles.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@PhiladelphiaInjustice: I didn't go over your proposed changes with a fine comb, but from a glance, it does appear that some of your edits are removing properly referenced material that one or more editors feel should remain. The only way to solve that part of the dispute would be to continue the discussion on the talk page in order to gain consensus. You might want to break it down by section in your explanation, and focus on the parts that you feel the most strongly about that need changing. If you provide specific details, I'd be happy to provide some feedback there, as I'm sure other editors will as well. Also, the typical structure of a Wikipedia article consists of a lead – an introductory section that summarizes the entire article. So keep in mind that as a summary, it will repeat information written in the body of the article to some degree. For short articles, the lead should be one or two paragraphs. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@70.15.65.126: There needs to be a reliable source that supports the claim. One of the major sources in roller coaster articles is RCDB.com. According to their website, it is still SBNO and hasn't been torn down yet. Therefore, we must assume there's a chance it may be reopened at some point until another source tells us otherwise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't really complain about you removing my addition (although you left the preceding uncited statement in place) but the condescending template message to an editor of 10 years was not needed. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Stifle: I apologize if the generic template seemed condescending. I realize that to veteran editors, it usually does. In all honesty, it's just a time saver for me to use the Twinkle template, since I spend a lot of time reverting unsourced edits. Usually I take the extra time to personalize messages in situations like this, but I overlooked it this time. As for the fact that there are other unsourced statements in the article, I usually don't let that influence my decision. At some point, the article (and countless others I touch) need cleanup. I'm just ensuring that additional unsourced statements aren't added in the meantime. Hope that clears things up. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
April 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Va Va Voom. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. And a multitude of other Minaj articles. Don't asked for a discussion then not pay attention to it. — ₳aron23:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
6,000 edits is hardly something to boast of (though I don't deny that some of your contributions may have been helpful), but no one is beyond a warning template. No one on here is "better" than anyone else, and edit count doesn't necessarily mean you know better, either. — ₳aron12:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say not to use templates. I suggested that you personalize them. It's common courtesy to avoid the use of generic templates when leaving messages on an editor's talk page who is likely familiar with Wikipedia policies. It's better to either personalize the template or simply just state what you want to say. See WP:DTR for more info. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, GoneIn60. You have new messages at Talk:Nicki Minaj. Message added 23:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Top Thrill Dragster
Hello.
I would like a further explanation regarding an addition I made to a video today. To reference, I added a link to a YouTube video to the Wikipedia page for Top Thrill Dragster.
Can you please explain the policy surrounding adding informational links to a Wiki page?
@TheGadgetGuy1: Sure, I'd be glad to explain. First, if you haven't done so already, have a look at Wikipedia's guideline regarding advertising and conflicts of interest. You shouldn't link to content that you've published for the reasons mentioned in the guideline. You can read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for an additional explanation. Secondly, the external links section in an article is like a "further reading" section (See WP:EL). It is typically used to link to further research on the subject. The links can be to a variety of content – news articles, books, videos, etc. – but it should be clear that the goal is to advance an interested reader's knowledge on the subject. Your link, in my opinion, doesn't appear to do so. While neat and fun, it seems more extracurricular than research-related. And finally, XLinkBot (a bot that runs an automated script/program) apparently flagged the URL you were trying to link to. Apparently it has a history of being flagged in the past. When this happens, it is usually a good idea to get the opinions of other editors regarding the use of the link instead of attempting to force it back in. You can do this by starting a discussion on the article's talk page. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The Zipper
It is of my recent knowledge that carnival companies are actually required by manufacturer policy as well as even by their insurance companies to strictly enforce a "No Single Riders" policy for the Zipper. I have done some widespread hunting for carnival companies that would let me ride solo on the Zipper and so far could not find a single one in either the USA or Canada that allows single riders on the Zipper. It has also even been commented on a topix.net forum that it is even Federal law, straight from Washington, DC, that no single riders, or even adults (18 or older! Partnered or not!) are allowed on the Zipper. Carnivalman (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Carnivalman: It's not that I don't believe you. It may very well be true, but original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. Content that is added here should be properly cited with a reliable source. Talk forums and personal observations, unfortunately, do not qualify since claims cannot be verified. You may want to look at WP:V and WP:CITE for more information regarding these policies. Hope this helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Fast Lane
Hey,
I noticed that you were adding tables to the Fast Lane article and thought I would just give you an idea. I started rewriting the article over a year ago but never got around to finishing it. I was merging everything into one table instead of multiple (like your doing now). Just wanted to see what you think of one table instead of a dozen.--Dom497 (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dom497: Thanks Dom! I looked over your sandbox proposal, and while I believe it is a lot better than what was in the article previously, I think we would lose the convenience of being able to link straight to a particular park's listing of Fast Lane rides. The other thing too is that the charts I've been adding make it easy to spot the Fast Lane Plus rides. If you can think of way to incorporate that into one chart, then I'd be open to the idea of combining them into one. But for now, I think separate charts is more convenient for the reader and easier for us to keep updated. What do you think? --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it's because I have a large screen but on my end it doesn't look very uniform (given how the tables are different sizes), but it really doesn't matter. I try to think of another way to split up FL and FLP. :) --Dom497 (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, the tables aren't uniform simply because the number of FL/FLP rides varies greatly from park to park (some have 25 or more while others have 15 or less). Even if you combine everything into one chart, it's not going to be uniform in some way. For example, take the length of each column in yours. There's a lot of unused space near the end of several columns. We should also consider screen resolutions. At work, I have a 1920 x 1080 screen and can see all the columns in your chart just fine without scrolling left or right. But at home, my laptop screen is only 1366 x 768, and I have to scroll right to see the rest. I imagine 1280 is probably closer to the average horizontal resolution these days. And finally, I think a majority of people are going to be visiting the Fast Lane page by clicking the "List of Fast Lane rides" link in amusement park articles (that's how I got there for the first time). The number of charts on the page and their varying sizes probably won't matter much to most. They're going to be more concerned about the specific list of rides at the park they were just reading about. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing. I think it's really helpful to have the "As of (date)" statement. It lets readers know immediately when the last time the list was verified. That gets lost in one big chart. Sorry, not trying to tear down the idea, but the more I think about it, the more I think it's probably better to keep each park separate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Wild One(Roller coaster)
Hello. I am aware you removed the change I made. I do not have an article, however I spoke with a member of the ride's matinence team while at the park, and they informed me of the ride specifications. They also mentioned they had made modifications that allowed the ride to achieve 60 MPH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OCMan101 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@OCMan101: I understand where you're coming from, but Wikipedia relies heavily on the ability to verify information. Word of mouth, unfortunately, is not verifiable. In fact, Wikipedia would classify that as original research, which is not permitted here. I appreciate you taking the time to explain, though. When you have time, you should review some of the site's policies such as WP:V and WP:CITE for a more in-depth explanation. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello again! I had a question, they posted a sign up actually on the Wild One's station that states they increased the ride's maximum speed. If I were to cleanly photograph this(I will be going back fairly soon), wouldn't that count as a reliable source, since it is photographic evidence directly from the park? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OCMan101 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@OCMan101: When you have a chance, I strongly suggest you read WP:OR and WP:V. We really need this to be reported in a reliable, secondary source. Publishing your own research unfortunately doesn't qualify. The way we justify the inclusion of information on Wikipedia is by its significance to the topic. One way to determine it's significance is by the number of reliable sources that have reported on it. In other words, something can be undeniably true, but unless a valid source mentions it (and preferably multiple sources), the information may not be suitable for Wikipedia. If you can find at least one source, it would probably be fine to make the change or at least start a discussion on the article's talk page. When I have a chance, I'll search for one myself. I would imagine it's been reported somewhere if there's a sign posted at the ride. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi GoneIn60, I just noticed that you had reverted my change in the Cedar Point article. The reason I did the change at all, was because I found and added a picture of the Cedar Point dance pavilion to the article Dance hall/Dance pavilion. It's a postcard from the early 20th century and it boasts that Cedar Point has "the largest dance floor on Lake Eire". The postcard also shows that it was a pavilion and not a hall (i.e. it has no walls, just a roof). In an attempt to find out the size claim, I eventually found that fan site. Yes, fan sites may not always be reliable, but as all the other facts on that fan site page tally with the Wiki article about Cedar Point, one may assume that the size of the dance floor is correct as well, as it obviously was something very impressive. Best regards, Thomas Blomberg (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
California's Great America
nothing id "disruptive" by making the tables sortable, up-to-date and easier to use for joe blow.
@Xcoaster1: You are removing links, prose, and adding random terms in what appear to be nonsensical acronyms, as shown in this diff. Also, you made over 50 edits in a row ramming through a lot of changes in a short amount of time. Since you have already been reverted once for doing this and ignored the message on your talk page, I suggest you start a discussion on the article's talk page before attempting to repeat these edits. It can be seen as disruptive and form of vandalism. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Unnecessary Deletion
I don't understand why the other two incidents for the ride, Poltergeist get to be listed but mine doesn't...What do you want me to do, call Six Flags and get a note from 15 years ago?? Because the park didn't want it spread, they chose not to report it due to the ride being newly released and the fact I wasn't injured.
For years I've been upset that my incident was not recognized when the idiots could have cost me my life at the age of NINE! So to delete what you did is ridiculous.
@Neveralone7: First of all, please don't take it personally. Multiple editors have removed the content on the same basis. I suggest you take a close look at some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which is what we are basing the removal on. The Welcome page is a good place to start. In this specific situation, the policies concerning verifiability and identifying reliable sources can be found at WP:V and WP:RS. Per WP:RS, for example, "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." The exception to that rule is if the author of the self-published work is "an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications". If you can show that your work merits an exception, then you should begin a discussion on the article's talk page to gain consensus before trying to include this information. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Roller coaster rankings
Now that The Smiler is officially SBNO, would that not just asterisk it in List of roller coaster rankings instead of removing it? I put it back and grayed it out, but I haven't changed the color of the new #1 ride (the four way tie for the various Colossus clones). Feel free to undo or tweak it, and thanks for all your help and contributions during this incident. --McDoobAU9314:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@McDoobAU93: Sorry, just posted to your talk page. You can look at "ring racer" in one of the other charts to see how SBNO is typically treated. It still needs to be in the list but should be greyed out and stripped of its ranking as signified by the *. Do you think we should handle these differently? I was only going by the way the page's creator handled it. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I reverted this edit of yours. The deletion by the IP was proper. No Cincinnati Red was National League MVP in 1971, alone there being a player named Justin Hundley at the time. I'm a baseball aficionado, but the fact that the entry was a redlink should be a clue. FYI all people who have made at least appearance in a Major League Baseball game, get an article....William21:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@WilliamJE: No problem. I didn't look that deep into it. Just saw the removal of content without an edit summary. Thanks for the heads up. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The Scenic Railway at Dreamland
Yes, The Scenic railway is under referbishment, as it is being repaired, but will not open for Dreamland's reopening on the 19th of June 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.250.11 (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@82.19.250.11: Your edit was reverted, because you didn't provide a reliable source. This doesn't mean it isn't true, nor does it mean a source doesn't exist. It just means you should provide one when adding updates to articles. If you need help with citations, see the referencing for beginners tutorial, and feel free to ask if you still have questions. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear GoneIn60, I have added comments to the talk page of the Scenic Railway regarding the closing date and the distinction between Grade II and Grade II* listing. Please could you review my comments and reinstate my edits based on this. --Peet13 (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Undue weight?
Unfortunately, this backwards compatibility has several nuances that cannot adequately be summarized without losing key information. I've been trying to to trim it down further, though. Also, I thought undue weight was more about the representation of viewpoints, not how much coverage we give to something that, undoubtedly, no one saw coming and will probably be considered today's highlight unless Sony does something similarly groundbreaking. Backwards compatibility has been a point of contention this generation... ViperSnake151 Talk 20:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@ViperSnake151: In addition to balancing opposing viewpoints, WP:UNDUE also applies to the amount of coverage that any particular aspect of a topic has in an article. For example, of all the published material covering the Xbox One, the portion that is focused on backward compatibility should get adequate coverage in the article, but that coverage shouldn't exceed a reasonable amount. A reasonable amount can be hard to gauge. If say 5% of all published material covers backward compatibility, then only 5% of the article's length should be reserved for that aspect. Of course, it's not an exact science since there's no way to determine the exact ratio. However, using 20% of an article on something that has had a small footprint in sources would easily stand out. After further review here, the backward compatibility section appears to only be taking up roughly 4.5% of the article, so it's not a major concern at this point. I'll let the recent changes sink in, but at some point, I may make a few minor modifications to help shorten it a bit. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Terminator Genisys
Hi, its NeoBatfreak. I just wonder, you seems to know lot about Terminator franchise. Do you think that the movie will get a sequel despite it is underperformed?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@NeoBatfreak: Sorry, I'm not an expert by any means when it comes to the Terminator franchise, but I have seen all 5 movies. From what I've read, at least one sequel has already been planned with another possible sequel after that. However, it all depends on how well it performs in the international market. Domestically, it doesn't look like it will break $100 million at the box office. If it fails internationally too, then they could cancel any planned sequels. That would be a shame, but it's the nature of the business! --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Also, have you checked the soundtrack section? Is it okay for me to put the film's single (Fighting Shadows) with the score's template, since they are both consider official soundtrack of the film?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't mess with the soundtrack sections much, but looking it over I'd say it looks pretty good. Nice work. If another editor with more experience with that template sees an issue, I'm sure they'll make the necessary corrections. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll look it over when I have a chance, but like I said, I'm not all that familiar with them. Give me some time to look at other good and featured articles, so I have an idea of what's generally expected of them. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@NeoBatfreak: Ok, so here's the deal. First, I made some minor changes to the prose and collapsed the primary track listing. I looked at the Dredd article as a reference. So I believe it's in better shape now. However, we need to keep this in mind: per MOS:FILM#Soundtrack, "Track listings for film scores are generally discouraged since the score is usually composed by one person and the score's tracks are generic descriptions of scenes from the film. Noteworthy tracks from the film score can be identified and discussed in prose."
With that in mind, the track listing you've added probably won't hold up over time as the article moves toward good and featured status. Notable tracks from the soundtrack should be singled out in prose with references that cover them in detail. Unless the music becomes critically acclaimed, this section will likely need to remain relatively short. And finally, I'm not sure about having a separate track listing for just the bonus track. I think at the very least, you should probably merge that into one. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello-
Obviously there was a confusion on my edit to the Disney's Hollywood Studios template. My revisions were due to the fact that The Magic of Disney Animation has officially closed. The second revision was due to the fact that themed restaurants were being included in a list of attractions, when restaurants, no matter how well themed and entertaining, are officially labeled as dining experiences by Disney.
@McDoobAU93: Thank you, sir! I haven't had time to work on that one, so I appreciate you taking care of the initial cleanup. I will hopefully find time later today or tomorrow. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Lake Compounce
Hello, I recently noticed that you have removed a large amount of info from the Lake Compounce page. I understand why you've gotten rid of most of what you have like height restrictions, which are unnecessary in an encyclopedia, and information about how a ride works, which only should be on that ride's own page. I am, however, confused on why the history of most rides, and explanations of the more unique attractions, were removed from the ride descriptions. One of the reasons you give in your edit explanation is that the material is unsourced. While that may be true, I'd like to point out that the majority of the article is unsourced anyway so just removing most of the info in the ride descriptions, but leaving in a bunch of other things, seems odd. To be fair, the second reason you give is that the information is "irrelevant" and I understand that those two reasons combined would be enough to justify deletion. The main thing that I'm confused about though is how that information is irrelevant. Like I said before, I understand why general information about rides that are at multiple parks is unnecessary, but my confusion comes from the removal of certain info of unique rides and info that is somehow unique to Lake Compounce that is of a replicated ride (like the theme or interesting history of it). I personally feel that that information should not be removed; however, I am aware that you do know more about Wikipedia's guidelines than me. I guess what I'd like to ask is if there is a rule or guideline that shows how this information is considered irrelevant. If not, then I'd still like to understand why you consider this irrelevant. For reference I'm talking about the edit you made on June 3rd at 20:04. Sorry to make such a fuss about it! It's just that I've always found that information interesting and was sad to see it gone. 68.109.116.131 (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern and questions. I assume you are referring to these edits: diff1, diff2, and diff3? Yes, the primary reason is the absence of a reliable source, but another reason is that the article's topic is the amusement park itself. Its history, rides, awards, and other notable content must all be given equal weight in the article per WP:DUE. It seemed to me that this was unbalanced, with way too much prominence given to the rides themselves. If the content was sourced, I would have likely initiated a discussion on the article's talk page first to discuss trimming some of the details and/or possibly moving the rides and their descriptions to a separate article, similar to how a few other amusement park articles have handled the issue. Without a source, however, there wasn't much I could convincingly save, and even many of the details that remain are still technically in question.
As for your concern about selective removal, you have a good point. It does seem unfair to remove or clean up only part of the article. Truthfully, I just haven't had the time to go back and take a closer look at the other sections. I was planning on doing some research to see what I could find on the park in reliable sources, and then go back to the article and keep what I can. I hate to remove potentially correct information myself, but it's the nature of the beast in Wikipedia's policies. Hope this helps, and if you have time to locate some sources, please feel free to cite them in the article or at least list them on the article's talk page for other editors to see. Someone will eventually find the time to include them. Just keep in mind that when it comes to amusement parks, there are a lot of fan websites that are sometimes hard to distinguish from what Wikipedia would call a reliable source. If you need help, just drop me a line. Thanks again! --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I have created a page for Cedar Point's new Dive Coaster. I don't have much written, I just wanted to get some old articles and information in there so they are not lost. Who knows when they'll announce this thing but when they do, there's an article started that could be built upon. I'm letting you know incase I'm not around when it is announced or if you wanted to work on it some. I'll also ping @Dom497: to this.--Astros4477 (Talk)
Hey, this link: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/alton-towers-says-smiler-not-6408105 talks about the smiler being tested and claims videos have surfaced showing it. I have been undoing quiet a few edits on the page which were concerning the status and editors were changing it to 'testing' and I and a few others were changing it back to SBNO. I am although starting to think that maybe we should change it to testing, after all Alton Towers and the HSE are testing it and there had been pictures of new components being added (or so I hear). Or does 'Testing' not apply in this case? Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@Sl3nderman3006: Thanks for the help keeping the page in order. I haven't been on much the past couple weeks. "Testing" is usually such a short period of time that we should probably look at removing it from the list of available statuses. In addition to being short, the testing phase of the ride still technically means it's SBNO, so changing the status to "testing" is unnecessarily more specific than it needs to be. That's something I'll eventually address at the WikiProject to see what other editors think. Even for those in favor of using that status, I don't think it applies here yet. The article states that the running of the ride is part of the investigation. That's not testing in the sense that preparations are being made to reopen the ride. Instead, they are simply running the ride to gather information. So I think it would be misleading at this time to change it from SBNO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
GoneIn60, this is Extravaganza1, I would just like to know what you consider disruptive about the edit I made on Terminator Genisys. How is it incompetent?! "Terminator Genisys received negative reviews from critics, who deemed the story as "messy" and "convoluted", and criticized the performances, as well as the casting of Jai Courtney as Kyle Reese, though Schwarzenegger's return to the franchise was welcomed." does NOT in ANY WAY destroy the entire page. Am I the only one who thinks that "Terminator Genisys was not well-received by critics, who found the story and performances to be unsatisfactory, though Schwarzenegger's return to the franchise was praised" to sound extremely clunky? I just wanted to add something that sounded less horrendously stupid. That's all. So please, tell me what's wrong with my edit, SPECIFICALLY. Or how it's any different than the previous one? And again, tell me specifically, because the disruptive editing page told me nothing about the type of edit I made that's supposedly bad.
@Extravaganza1: It is disruptive in the sense that previous edit summary comments described the reason why this was changed back to its original form, then just a day or two later, you undid that change without discussing it first or paying attention to the edit summary. If you head over to the article's talk page, you'll find a recent section where this was discussed. We had consensus established to use that phrasing. It might be a little clunky, sure, but please continue the discussion and provide a better alternative there before ramming it through on the page.
I can tell you that classifying the majority of reviews as "negative" always causes a big stir, and if you look at some of the other discussions on the talk page, you'll see exactly why: other editors strongly believe that a majority of the reviews were actually mixed and not negative. Saying it's "not well-received" was a compromise, because it includes both mixed and negative in this form. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
So then could I say that "Terminator Genisys received mixed to negative reviews, with critics welcoming Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the franchise, but deeming the story as "messy" and "convoluted" and criticized the performances and the casting of Jai Courtney as Kyle Reese."? It would still be a compromise for those who believe that the film received mixed reviews.
@Extravaganza1: Actually, that probably wouldn't work either. A lot of editors have issues with using "mixed to negative" or "mixed to positive", and grammatically speaking, that is a clunky phrase as well. Saying it wasn't well received includes both mixed and negative reviews, and the shorter phrasing flows better. I strongly advise you contribute any thoughts/suggestions to the discussion on the article talk page. You'll need consensus at this point if you want your change to stick, and convincing me won't be enough. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Cannibal inversions
According to Lagoon Park, Cannibal has 3 inversions. They're the ones who created Cannibal so their credible. RCDB is a FANSITE so they don't count. Plus on the vehicles, a POV shows a car marked 5 so there's more than just a single car. I changed the inversion back to 3 so please don't change it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.200.86 (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@69.135.200.86: First of all, RCDB is not a fansite. It's a well-established source in the industry that consists of a team of researchers who verify park claims. Often, parks define things differently than the industry, so specifications and records can be misleading when reading them on the park's website. In addition to RCDB's claim of 4 inversions, you can read the publication by American Coaster Enthusiasts (ACE) here, which clearly states that riders experience an Immelmann, a dive Immelmann loop, and then a double heartline roll that the parks calls the Lagoon roll. That's 4 inversions.
Also you should be aware of Wikipedia's policy WP:PSTS, which explains the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, and clarifies why secondary sources are preferred. The park's website is a primary source, and while acceptable in the absence of reliable, secondary sources, it would not be considered more reliable than RCDB or ACE. When they disagree, we go with the secondary source. You will need to discuss this on the article's talk page to gain consensus if you still disagree and would like to change it. Please don't edit war. See WP:BOLD and WP:BRD for help understanding why your edit may be reverted and what the etiquette is on Wikipedia for handling these situations. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Force Awakens
I reverted your edit which re included the text on Daniel Fleetwood story in Force Awakens article. I was the original editor who removed it and then asked the editor who originally included it to take its inclusion to the talk page. The discussion is still on going and I have contributed to that discussion. I think there may be some confusion because my last edit to the article was to remove an irrelevant text which promoted the BBC 'Children in Need' program's makers intention to do a Force Awakens parody piece. Robynthehode (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Waste your time interfering with what other people are doing.
Would you please explain why you deleted my note on the Talk page at:
LED-backlit_LCD_display
while I was working on it. Sorry if I am slow but I took the time to look some things up so that I would have them correct.
Do you enjoy wasting your time causing other people difficulties and causing them to have to waste their time? --Tyrerj (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Tyrerj: Don't take it personally. At the time, it was an empty section and nothing more. Your edit appeared to be accidental, so I reverted it. In the future, you should use the "Show preview" button instead of "Save page" to make sure everything looks good before submitting. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, I have down-sized the text in sandbox quiet a bit and taken out victim names, reasons for crash (it was already mentioned elsewhere on the page) and various other chaff. I also added a reference section. Personally in my opinion, I think its good to go now and it will fit in with the page nicely. Oh by the way, I think that the text regarding this specific incident above the incidents table can be removed as this text (if it's OK) will effectively work as a replacement as well. HiddenHerobrine (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
In regards to your message concerning my edits to the Nighthawk page, the following is a link to Nighthawk's RCDB.com page which lists both it's length (843 meters) and the fact it is listed as a "prototype":
The following is a link to the RCDB.com entry for all the Vekoma "Flying Dutchman" roller coasters which lists the length for each. Nighthawk is listed as 843 meters, while the other two are 1018 meters.
@67.197.249.185: Thanks for pointing out where you got your information. On Wikipedia, it is important to provide the references when adding this information, and you can read more about how to do so at WP:CITE. If you'd like to readd the information that I removed, feel free as long as you cite them. Also, keep in mind that since this is an article on an American roller coaster, measurements should remain in the US customary format. So use feet instead of meters. And finally, the RCDB.com source you provided does not support the other claims you were making:
...and as such several of the ride and design elements and safety features are different from the other two coasters, which are considered "production" models. Many coaster enthusiasts consider Nighthawk to be a rougher ride than its two sister coasters, as Vekoma took time to modify the design and smooth out the rough spots before building the other two.
Why don't you look at the Kings Island website and notice that the 2:20 time for Adventure Express is INCORRECT on here. That's why I changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.202.74 (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@71.64.202.74: First of all, thank you for the explanation. For future reference, it would be helpful for you to state the reason in the edit summary, so others can see immediately why you made the change. Both times you left this blank. As for park information, it is often inaccurate and sometimes even inconsistent. Per WP:PRIMARY, Wikipedia prefers to rely on 3rd-party sources, called secondary sources. Primary sources such as the park's website are acceptable, but when they conflict with secondary sources, we go with the latter. Primary ones can sometimes be promotional and use different standards of measurement for ride times, height, and other specs than the rest of the industry. Here, RCDB.com clearly states 2:20 (link). If you believe this needs additional discussion, then begin a new one at the article's talk page. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Adventure Express Station/Dedication Photos
I should have those photos for Adventure Express by tomorrow or Monday, and I'll be sure to send them from this exact talk section for you to use and post them in!
Though I do want to know if you want the Station to be a Panorama or just a long-view? I also might NOT have the Station by Tomorrow or Monday. Oblivioux (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Magic Mountain Rollback?
Do you have rollback privileges? There were several unsourced edits done to the Six Flags Magic Mountain page by RocketSledder77. It would be great if you can just roll the page back to the last known good edit. Thanks —JlACEer (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@JlACEer: I don't have rollback rights, but I use Twinkle to accomplish the same thing. I went ahead and reverted those edits. One thing I'm curious about, however, is that the article suggests a change was made to Superman: Escape from Krypton to increase its speed from 100 mph to 104 mph. Do we know if that has been confirmed? RCDB still has it listed at 100. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I see he is at it again from an anonymous IP. All sources I have seen indicate the coaster's speed is 100 mph. The park has not made any claims that it is now going faster. You know that if the speed did increase, marketing would have been all over it. I don't know where these figures of 104 and 105 mph are coming from.—JlACEer (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Cannibal
You misread the "Ultimaterollercoaster" it means there are 7 trains that can hold 12 passengers. As it states; trains-7 for a total of 12 passengers. DisneyFan22 (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Independence Day
Firstly, thank you for your willingness to get involved in this dispute.
Secondly...wow, this is going nowhere fast... At this point I'm inclined to say we should contact the protecting admin and say we believe we have a consensus, and if the dissenting editor wants to escalate matters they can pursue other forms of dispute resolution. If you want me to say that on the Talk page I will, but (believe it or not) I'm trying to avoid saying anything that might inflame the situation any further. DonIago (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
DonIago: I understand your hesitation to further inflame the situation, but it does look like from his second-to-last post that he's finally provided a few of his main concerns with your proposal. Perhaps you can find a way to address some of them. For example, there might be a more elegant way to reinsert the "suicide mission" detail as a first step to finding a compromise. Just a thought. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
If you'd like to propose something along those lines, I won't stop you and may even support you, but at this point I feel that he has no interest in anything I personally might have to say (he's ignored previous comments, including at least two requests to be proactive and offer a compromise), and that his interest in this matter may be less about improving the plot summary than making a WP:POINT. Were I to actively assume bad faith I might think he's trolling us and intends to drag this out as long as possible, given what I have perceived as misleading statements and personal attacks. I'm sorry, but until he offers an olive branch I don't believe my going out on a limb to work with him (no pun intended) will be productive. Best of luck to...well, all of us, really. DonIago (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Lightning Rod
Heads up; getting individual reports that LR is in "technical rehearsals" now. Park guests are receiving tickets allowing them to ride, as long as the ride remains functional. Hardly anything encyclopedic, but we should be ready if editors start adding this. --McDoobAU9318:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@McDoobAU93: Thanks for the heads up. By the way, I replied to the thread "Under refurbishment" and WP:TRAVELGUIDE about this sort of thing. The more I think about it, the more we should probably do away with "Testing" at the very least. It's a short-term status that doesn't need to be tracked on an encyclopedia IMHO. Someone could modify the infobox template to automatically change testing to "under construction" when someone enters it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Marth The Hero King – Thanks for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia! I don't have a lot of experience with uploading images, but I suggest you visit WP:IMAGE. There are links to tutorials from that main page. Good luck! --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
ROBLOXfan123: If you can cite a reliable source to back the claim, feel free to change it to testing. Just so you're aware, we've been discussing the possibility of removing short-term statuses from the infobox (such as "testing") at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks. Feel free to weigh in with your opinion there if you want. Encyclopedia's should have a long-term view in mind, and items like this that require up-to-the-minute status updates don't really belong in an encyclopedia. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Another heads-up
I really appreciate your help and editing of all the amusement park articles here. I wanted to ask you to put the various Six Flags Over Georgia articles on your radar/watchlist for the next week. They Tweeted that they would "say good-bye" to a "30-plus-year-old attraction" on Thursday in order to make way for the 2017 installation, whatever it may be. I've already had to revert one edit adding speculation to one park ride. I'd be grateful for any oversight you can provide, depending on your schedule. --McDoobAU9302:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
McDoobAU93: Sure thing. My presence will be limited over the next week, as I'm in the process of getting my home listed on the market, but I'll definitely keep an eye out when I'm on. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Independence Day reviews
My bad dude. I don't check Talk pages or edit summaries very often, I assumed since the reverts from "negative" to "mixed" were often awkward worded it was done by random IP users and wasn't a consensus. It's all in good faith (as most reviews and metacritic/RT imply negative reception) but it's only Wikipedia so I'm not about to start a war over an opening sentence haha. I'll leave it be and sorry for stressing you out. TropicAces (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)tropicAces
TropicAces, no problem. I figured you weren't reading the alerts or edit summaries, considering you usually collaborate well with other editors. Just an FYI that there have been many long discussions that we as editors cannot interpret the numbers ourselves, and while "mixed" normally gets by fine, "negative" and "positive" usually cause a lot of edit-warring without a source cited right next to the word or sentence. Past discussions have determined "not well-received" was fine in the absence of a source that calls it "negative". Also, we should permit short, concise statements in the lead that summarize some of the feedback. I'll reinstate it since you're dropping your opposition, but if you change your mind, feel free to join the discussion on the article talk page. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
SockPuppet or Whatever
Hey man, got tagged in a bunch of things about double accounts and Sock Puppets and things of that nature (I'm only going to read so much of those pages). If you need clarification about something just hit up my page or respond to this. If you think I may have two accounts, it's likely because my app sometimes randomly logs me out without notification so my edits post as IP. Hopefully this all gets resolved. Wikipedia ain't stressing over haha... Have a blessed one. TropicAces (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)tropicAces
TropicAces, no worries. The SPI didn't concern you. Two other editors (or possibly one depending on the outcome of that SPI) were trying to rope you into a conversation that wasn't about you. They noticed you and I had a recent disagreement, so they figured they could solicit your help to argue in their favor. Unless you're interested in reading that discussion-turned-novel, I'd just ignore it! Have a good one... --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
You're invited! Great Buckeye Wiknic 2016
Hello there! You are invited to attend the Great Buckeye Wiknic in Columbus, Ohio on Sunday, July 10th from 1:00 to 5:00 PM! Join us for a day in the park for food and socializing with others from the Wikimedia movement. We'll be meeting up at Fred Beekman Park, a park on Ohio State University's campus.
If you're interested, please take a look at our events page for more information, including parking info, food options, and available activities. If you plan on attending, please add your name to the attendees list. We look forward to seeing you!
(Note: If you would like to stop receiving notifications regarding Wikimedia events around Ohio, you may remove your username from this list.)
grate praise for your SPI on trollls
Good catch on the socks! My eyes bled reading all hundreds pages. You know how contenteditman and the anonymous IP are probably the same troll? I caught Parsley Man slip! He's probably the master sock of them all!! He and the anonymous IP from the SPI made overlapping edits if carefully compare their history. I think he realized his mistake so he quickly cover up and pretend to talk to himself and reverse own edits to cover tracks!!! Very so so very stupid really. I would report on SPI but not know well enough how. English just not good enough. I think troll smarter than appears. Using decoy accounts on separate tracks to troll and active Parsley Man main account on main track for serious editing. All are same troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.63.100:80 (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@92.63.100:80: I briefly looked through past edits of these accounts and didn't see the overlapping edits you mentioned. Provide a link to the article, page, or diff that you're referring to. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Overlapping editss [2] + [3]. Observe mistake slip. Forgetss login and on same pages same day! Transformers and Sevouflurane!!!! [4]+[5]. [6] and [7]. Couldnt be coincidence <-> Parsleyman catches mistake and speaks to himself to cover up slip! [[8]] All are same troll! 195.88.208.155 (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I still don't see the connection. The edits were on the same articles, but they weren't making the exact same edits. It could very well be two different users. Since you know where the SPI is, consider adding Parsley Man to the list of potential socks if you feel strongly about it. You just need to provide the links and a reason. I don't see a strong enough connection to add it myself. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Meant sincerely. We have a number of mutual pages on our Watchlist, and as far as I can recall, your edits and edit-summaries that I've seen are reasonable, constructive and helpful. I certainly never meant to give an impression I was being flippant or sarcastic ... it was meant genuinely. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the reason I removed your entries from the Geauga Lake and Big Dipper articles is because you didn't provide a source. While it is great you provided one here, I mentioned in the edit summary that you should review WP:CITE, which describes how to properly cite sources in articles, and WP:V, which explains the reason why proper citations are often required. Earlier when I removed your entries, I did a quick google search but was unable to locate a source. Be sure to cite sources in future edits. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, GoneIn60. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Re this revert - Sit Down is clearly not a valid parameter for the template, as I came across the article because it was generating a red-linked category. By reverting my edit you breached WP:REDNOT. I have no interest in the article other than the red linked cat, but I would guess that sitting is not considered a WP:DEFINING characteristic of rollercoasters because that's what >90% of them are, so it's not helpful to categorise by sitting-ness (bearing in mind the need to avoid WP:Overcategorization. So what do you suggest? Le Deluge (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Le Deluge: I didn't realize the article was generating a "red-linked category". When you look at the article following the revert, the "Sit Down" link isn't red. It doesn't appear that the revert violates WP:REDNOT in that respect, and at the very least, it wasn't intentional if it does. I would suggest posting a notice about the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks. You've made a good point about "Sit Down" possibly being a useless characteristic to mention in the infobox, and at the project, it can be addressed to a wider audience. I'm sure there are hundreds of articles within the project's scope using that parameter. Plus, there's at least one or two active editors that would know how to edit the infobox template to address the deprecated parameter should we decide to quit using it. Thanks for the heads up. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Le Deluge: To be clear, I was looking at the phrase "Sit Down" mentioned in the infobox, which isn't red, meaning the parameter is accepted in the infobox. I follow you now. The category is red, and The Beast is definitely the only member. In light of that, I will undo my revert. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for any confusion, I've been part of a team that have cleared >10,000 category red links in the last few weeks, so that's all I can see on articles at the moment! Le Deluge (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Moonlight opening line
I figured you're as good a person as any to come to this with. On Moonlight's page, there is constant reverting to adding (very) unnecessary commas. They insist on putting them after the country of production ("American") and between genres ("coming-of-age drama film") so that the entire opening line reads, "Moonlight is a 2016 American, coming-of-age, drama, film written and directed by Barry Jenkins based on the...".. This isn't done on a single other film page I've ever seen, and just seems awkward anyways. Wondering the proper stance on this? Thanks. TropicAces (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)tropicAces
@TropicAces: Well, personally I think the opening can probably use some work. It's a bit long-winded. But to answer your question, commas are typically used to separate coordinate adjectives but not to separate cumulative adjectives. This link helps explain the difference. When you have a phrase such as "American drama film", no comma is needed since drama is cumulative and pairs with the noun film; the only coordinate adjective making a modification here is American. However, "American, coming-of-age drama film" would require a single comma, since coming-of-age adds a second coordinate adjective.
The opening paragraph might flow better if you try something like:
FYI, I went ahead and moved those changes over, considering you probably didn't want to make another change in such a short time span. Feel free to further modify it if needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I very strongly disagree. They are all coordinate adjectives, one of which is an attributive noun. And it's confusing. Is it an (American drama) (film), an (American) (drama film), an (American) (drama) (film), or what? It's ghastly. That's what it is. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC) And don't forget the 2016, yet another adjective. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Antinoos69, coordinate adjectives can be rearranged in any order without forming an awkward phrase. American drama film couldn't be rearranged to say drama American film. It simply doesn't work. Therefore, we know drama in this case is a cumulative adjective and "American" is the only coordinate adjective. Even if you still don't agree, that doesn't explain why you are opposed to the proposal above to form three sentences. Right now, there's too much crammed into the first sentence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
You're being tripped up by the fact drama here is an attributive noun. I consider the usage here perfectly interchangeable with dramatic, which could be rearranged without problem. The problem, ultimately, is that you are taking drama film as though it were a commonly recognized compound noun, like tennis shoe. It isn't, which is why it sounds as awkward as it does. As I explained earlier, it is unclear how one should group the adjectives. When omitting commas leads to uncertainty, it is common practice to insert them. (And I do make a living teaching various grammars.) For at least these reasons, the commas are necessary. And don't get me started on 2016 as an adjective, on which it is very difficult to find guidance. I will recast the sentence to avoid any strings of adjectives, which should definitely solve this ambiguous and confusing matter. Btw, this discussion really belongs on the article's talk page, where everyone can see it. You should probably transfer it. Antinoos69 (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Antinoos69: Well yes and no. You are correct that I was mixing up cumulative adjective with attributive noun – I'm a little rusty at wordplay! However, I would disagree that this revelation changes anything. Both types are treated the same way. An attributive noun, like a cumulative adjective, should be placed immediately before (or after) the noun. So when you add the adjective American, it is very clear how it should be grouped and ordered: American drama film. A comma is not required between an adjective and attributive noun. An example of this is given at Merriam-Webster, in which long research paper doesn't require a comma between the adjective long and the attributive noun research.
If you substitute the adjective dramatic for the noun drama, then things change, and the order in which the adjectives appear would become interchangeable: American dramatic film or dramatic American film. However, in either case, a comma still wouldn't be required, but that's a moot point not worth getting into detail here (we're not planning on making the substitution). As for whether or not drama film is a widely-recognized compound noun, that doesn't seem to matter here. It's still an acceptable compound noun that is prevalent in reliable sources (see LA Times and AMC Filmsite). You do make a good point about the presence of "2016"; it definitely throws a wrench into the mix that may warrant additional discussion at the Wikipedia film project.
On a final note, I don't plan to move this discussion to the talk page. If you'd like to start a discussion there and link to this one, feel free, but I have no interest whatsoever in getting involved at that article. There are thousands of film articles using this format in the opening line, and if you believe this behavior is grammatically incorrect, then a better place to raise the issue is on the talk page at WP:FILM. Getting the attention and consensus there with other veteran editors is a more efficient way to correct the problem (if in fact, it needs corrected). Good luck! --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I still strongly disagree. I don't view a plain attributive noun any differently than I do an attributive adjective for this purpose—unless the attributive noun and the noun it qualifies were so closely connected by accepted usage as to constitute something of a widely accepted and proper term, such as research paper. I certainly don't consider drama film such a term, which grates very harshly on my ear. I accept a drama. I accept a film. I accept a dramatic film as a noun with attributive adjective and as the proper phrase to use with film. I don't accept a drama film, wherein I consider drama a loosely applied, separate, and plain attributive noun, including in the examples you provided. I might even call it something of a vile Germanism, but that's another involved story. In any case, not all authorities use the order test. Some just use the conjunction test, and I have no problem with a 2016 and American and drama film. And there's still the grouping problem. 2016 American drama film can be grouped in a number of ways, and I'll essentially ignore the 2016 issue. I'll mention only three. One can understand (2016) (American) (drama) (film), which I've been discussing as three different adjectives qualifying film. One can understand (2016) (American) (drama film), which you've been discussing as involving cumulative adjectives. But one can also understand (2016) (American drama) (film), where there are two adjectives qualifying film, and American drama would be an attributive noun phrase referring to a drama on some sort of American themes. The comma is needed to clearly rule out the last option, since commas can almost always be added for clarity. One might also recall the general recommendation to try to limit strings of adjectives to two and certainly no more than three adjectives. Some of the strings on Wikipedia, hardly the paragon of good writing and grammar, are downright ridiculous and abominable. I typically end up pausing for several seconds at these lengthy strings of adjectives in film articles here, trying to parse them—an unintended distraction, I would imagine, and certainly an annoying one. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
"Some of the strings on Wikipedia, hardly the paragon of good writing and grammar, are downright ridiculous and abominable."
You couldn't be more right! More often than not, you'll find at least one head-scratcher in each article you come across, and some are just horrid! I've spent a lot of time trying to correct these atrocities as I encounter them, but over time I've come to find that many of those changes don't last unless you're constantly watching/policing the article. I would get so much more done if I didn't have to spend a lot of time babysitting!
While we may not completely agree in this situation, I wish you well. Wikipedia can use more editors like yourself fixing grammatical mistakes and willing to challenge the status quo. Don't let anyone here discourage you, because believe me, you'll run into your fair share of edit warriors if you haven't already. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
New article
Hey GoneIn60! It's been a while since I've spoken to you. Anyways, I created a new article, Smoky Mountain Alpine Coaster, and I attempted to use other roller coaster articles as a guide. Do you see any issues with it? I'd appreciate any comments, thanks!Wackyike (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Wackyike – Appreciate your efforts here, but it may not be worthy of its own article. There are at least 4 open now in the Smokies, and instead of creating a separate article for each, it might be better if their information was merged into the main mountain coaster article (which by the way should probably be renamed Alpine coaster, the more common name for the model and the one RCDB uses). Also, the date in the opening line says April 3rd, 2016, but that should be changed to April 3, 2013.A good test to know when an attraction should have its own article is if it's well-known outside its jurisdiction, getting mentioned in the press outside of its locale (the more frequent this occurs, the better your case). I'm not sure there's enough justification here, but a valient effort nonetheless! There are a lot of rides at amusement parks that just don't have enough coverage in reliable sources to justify their own article, and in fact there are even quite a few roller coaster articles that should be deleted for that reason. Just my 2¢. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I had a feeling you might say that. We'll see what the new page reviewer does. One more question (at least for now): I noticed in this discussion that this article was discussed, and now that we know for sure its a goner and will be demolished, when would the status change from "closed" to "removed"? Reliable sources say it will be demolished, but I didn't see any sources saying it has been demolished as of now.Wackyike (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, anytime you have a question, feel free to ask. I'll do my best to help steer you in the right direction! As for the Verrückt water slide, I would recommend waiting until there's confirmation it's been removed from the park. With big rides like this that get a lot of press, especially after a major incident (Son of Beast for example), you're always going to hear when it was finally torn down. For smaller, lesser-known rides, that may not be the case. In those situations, it's best just to wait a period of time (several months to a year) after the ride is no longer listed on the park's website. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
It's interesting that RCDB updated their article on Mystic Timbers shortly before your citation was added. Then after I modified your edit to match "Skyline Attractions" being cited at RCDB, you changed it back to "Skyline Design LLC". When I checked RCDB again, it was updated again to match your preferred title. If you work for RCDB or have close ties, you should disclose that information. The timing of all this is more than coincidental. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Skyline Design, as far as I can tell, is a company that makes Architectural Glass. Skyline Attractions does work in the theme park industry, (EDIT: and has a subsidiary named Skyline Design) and Jeff Pike (who used to be the lead designer for GCI, the company building the ride, and who is also named in the article) is their president, but if they actually were involved in a coster of this magnitude, you think they'd mention it somewhere. I would believe that Jeff Pike was involved with the design of the ride before he left GCI, and Skyline Attractions has claimed that they plan on working with GCI on "select ride designs", but claiming that Skyline Attractions was involved is a stretch without a better source than RCDB. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 13:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC) (talk page watcher)
Based on everything I've read, it is likely that Skyline Design worked with GCI on Mystic Timbers. Skyline Attractions formed in early 2015, and its subsidiary Skyline Design followed soon after. Both likely happened long before planning and design started on the new coaster at KI. GCI's in-house engineers are more than capable, but they would have likely collaborated closely with Jeff Pike, and it may have even been one of his designs he worked on prior to leaving GCI as you stated. So many if's though. Would have been nice if there was another source besides RCDB confirming it. I still don't like the fact that RCDB was changed on April 4 to show Skyline Attractions, and then again on April 5 showing Skyline Design. It's almost as if this IP was directly interacting with RCDB to modify its content. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Not interacting directly with RCDB, but I do know Duane pretty well. If RCDB is not a valid source, I guess you guys can take the info out, but I know that RCDB is used as a source elsewhere on the page so not sure why it wouldn't be valid for this aspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.192.77.33 (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@107.192.77.33: – Did you email or contact Duane in some way? It is more than a mere coincidence that your edits at Mystic Timbers occurred within a few hours of RCDB changing its content, not once but twice within a 48-hour period. It's also suspect that the changes made at RCDB directly supported your position when it was being challenged. RCDB is generally reliable, but this isn't the first time I've come across issues like this. You should willingly disclose if you work for GCI, Skyline, or RCDB per WP:COI, Wikipedia's policy governing conflict of interest. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I do work for Skyline. I didn't realize that I was violating a Wiki policy by directly editing the page. I've distributed some information recently to several websites, including RCDB, regarding Skyline's role with wood coasters. If you guys want to pull the info down until it's published elsewhere, that's OK I won't change it again. We will eventually update our website with information regarding coaster designs we've generated for GCII. At that point I would appreciate if someone would re-insert the info as you see fit. Thanks for being thorough and for educating me a bit about Wiki policy. -Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:bddd:88e0:746f:809f:b86d:a86c (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Jeff, thanks for being straight-forward and acknowledging that you were in direct contact with the source. Considering RCDB has been pretty rock solid and they certainly vetted the information you gave them (I know Duane scrutinizes every detail), I'm not going to oppose leaving it in at this point. I apologize if my responses seemed rash and accusatory; quite a few of us here deal with a lot of drive-by vandalism and unsourced edits. It gets exhausting at times!WP:COI discourages editing articles you have a close affiliation with, but not necessarily for small, non-controversial edits. If you're not sure down the road, post your requested change on the article's talk page and someone will eventually respond. You can also drop me a line and/or post on the talk page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks, which will get the attention of more editors. Hope that helps! --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Similar user
By chance, is GoneIn70 an alternate account? I saw the account a few minutes ago editing roller coaster-related articles and was just wondering if it was a new user or just a alt. Adog104Talk to me01:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Ahecht: Yes, thanks for the heads up. I realize it's confusing at the moment, since the category name(s) don't match what we're using them for. Currently, we have Removed attractions going to their own category and Defunct going to another, but really, these are synonyms. Both types should be going to the same place. Since Defunct is not an acceptable status, I've changed it so that any attraction using that parameter will go into the Removed category. I would like to rename Defunct to Closed, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. I've been spending most of my time sifting through articles in the Defunct list and updating them accordingly. If you'd like to rename the category sooner rather than later, then please feel free. Just keep in mind that there are a ton of articles that manually have the Defunct category specified in the article; it's not always being auto-generated by the infobox. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
In that case, the best course of action would be to create a closed category, wait a few days for the cached pages to update, and then use Cat-a-lot to move the remaining articles from Defunct to Removed. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 18:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Ahecht: That's a good idea. I'll create the category now and modify the status template so that |closed |sbno |standing all map to it. I haven't used Cat-a-lot yet, but I'm sure it won't take much to figure it out. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Ahecht: Appreciate it. I think the ones remaining in the Defunct category are ones that have the category manually specified. I don't mind manually going through them, if you'd like to hold off on the move. Often I find other minor issues with the categories and infobox I'd like to fix as I go through them. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the assistance with patrolling and updating Patriot CGA.
You recently (11:07, 4 May 2017) made a change to the page's infobox and it seems a conditional tag disappeared which made the old image of Vortex visible - I took the liberty of replacing the conditional tag. If I am mistaken please let me know and I can revert?
I am of the opinion that only the logo of Patriot should now be visible (in the infobox) until a new image of Patriot is made available, similar to Mako's approach. Could I perhaps include the image of Vortex in the body of the article instead (where the reference is made to the old paint scheme)?
VitaminCL: No, sorry it was a mistake on my part. If you look at the changes I made, I didn't see that the hidden tag extended a couple lines down where "|caption=Vortex-->" was located. Somehow I missed that! The change you made is fine, and at some point we will want to retain the old image and place it somewhere down in the body of the article. Thanks for the heads up. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your message. The information I contributed was meant to be just clairification, but I am not sure for to "cite" it. I personally went to Six Flags Great America 2015, 2016, and 2017 and heard the music playing on "Demon". Because it wasn't a huge deal, it is impossible to provide a traditional source, other than myself. I believe it is an important detail to add to the article nonetheless. I appreciate any feedback, Thanks Lukebenne (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukebenne (talk • contribs)
Lukebenne: When I last worked on that article, I left that area open-ended until a reliable source emerges that supports more specific information. Unfortunately, personal experience would be a form of original research, which isn't permitted on Wikipedia. If it never appears in a reliable source, then by Wikipedia's standards, we shouldn't include the information in the article. If it's worth reporting, then some source somewhere will report it. You may want to look over WP:V and WP:CITE for more information about proper referencing. You might also want to visit the welcome page for general tips for new editors. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Jackdude101, I'm not all that familiar with weighing in on Featured Article reviews, but I went ahead and copyedited the lead which should help out. When you have a chance, please make sure that all elements mentioned in the lead are mentioned somewhere down in the body of the article. I may revisit later and begin copyediting other sections. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyedit to the lead. It never hurts to have another set of eyes look over things. I have indeed included all of the things mentioned in the lead in the article body. You probably don't need to go to all of that trouble with copyediting the rest of the article, though. The article already passed an extensive, top-to-bottom review of its prose a few days ago. What is needed is for people to state that they support the article's nomination on the review page. The general rule is that you need three people besides the nominator to state that they support it, and two people have done so thus far. Jackdude101 (Talk) 19:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Your suggestion at the Citation Underkill MfD
Your suggested language would certainly resolve my concerns. That said... one of the questions we need to resolve at the MfD is whether the essay should be moved into QuackGuru's userspace, or continue in mainspace. That question will depend on how much Quack is open to others editing the essay he started ... so... would you be willing to do a bold edit and amend the essay with your suggested language? Then we can see how he reacts. Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I thought I left an explanation. Those awards are awarded to the individual parks not the chain overall and should be mentioned on the individual park page and the page of the of the ride like it is for the park pages for Universal, Six Flags parks, and Disney Parks not the page for the overall chain. Also you were missing the awards won by Millennium Force and the Best Steel Coaster won by Fury 325. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitchellLunger (talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
MitchellLunger, the main reason I reverted you was because there was no explanation in the edit summary. Now that you have provided one, it's not a problem. Also above, you noted that "you were missing...", but I did not add that content, so I wasn't missing anything! I get your point though: it is an incomplete list that is better off being listed at the individual park article where it was awarded. Fair enough. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I am the source for forgotten Geauga Lake Rides
It's missing many Geauga Lake rides. My Dad took us there every year starting in the 1960s. I live across the street from Geauga Lake.
@2605:A000:F740:1200:95D6:BB77:4500:D978: Sorry, but you cannot be the source for claims on Wikipedia. Personal experience is a form of original research, which is not permitted. The geaugalaketoday.com source may be acceptable to some extent, but yourself, Facebook, and other articles on Wikipedia cannot be used as sources. I suggest you thoroughly read WP:V and WP:RS to understand what is allowed, and then WP:CITE for help on how to add citations. Also feel free to ask for help if you get stuck. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Hugging Captain America
Hey, what do you think about this?
I mean, I did say that I would be satisfied if the term was unlinked, and I wound up getting more than that with the term being completely excised from the body and the citation being removed, but I proposed that that was when I just wanted the dispute to be over because I was sick of Huggums's WP:IDHT act. Then you chimed in, and Huggums (who apparently only realized he was in the minority when someone other other than himself, me and Favre commented on the article talk page itself, or was pretending not to realize it until that point) spontaneously "surrendered" and unilaterally instated the compromise proposal as "consensus".
But if more folks like you and everyone else at WT:FILM and RSN had come along earlier, I never would have got sick of the IDHT act and we wouldn't have had the "compromise" of using the ambiguous term that is either inaccurate or somewhat POV but just not linking the article thay discusses the former definition, and I wouldn't have to deal with him sending off both the WT:FILM and RSN threads with "Hijiri was wrong, but I've decided to compromise with him anyway".
And, more importantly, the article still says the film has an "ensemble cast".
Note that I did just outline how I think this whole mess (which spreads far beyond that one article and has very little to do with me and nothing to do with Huggums) will eventually end here. But I've had this feeling since 2015 and so far very little has happened, so I might just be completely wrong. In my prediction of what will happen, not in my claim that the article and those related to it have OWN problems and contain serious sourcing issues. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri 88: Well, I find it interesting that the compromise I proposed later in the discussion wasn't addressed. Whether that was intentional or not, I still think the phrase should be removed from the lead at the very least. I'm disengaging for a bit to see if anyone else weighs in. I was hoping Favre would re-enter and comment on what has happened so far. I usually trust his judgement in matters like this. Also, Huggums does have some valid points at WT:FILM but seemed to lose a little objectivity in the CA thread.You're right about some editors having OWN problems in MCU and DCEU articles (though I don't wish to imply Huggums is one of them). I've been fighting that battle at the Superman-related articles for years, so I feel your pain! --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, of course, Huggums couldn't be one of them -- he's too new. I just thought, based on his use of "we" on RSN, that he was includiing himself in the editors with OWN problems. That said, something else in your above comment leads me to believe you and I might disagree on exactly who said editors are, and I'm not really in the mood for getting in a fight over it right now. (If we do disagree, you could very well be right, and I could just be misreading things -- it wouldn't be the first time that happened.)
That said, I think Favre's comment accusing me of OR for wanting to remove the phrase from the article and do so based on my reading of the source as using the phrase in a different sense than Wikipedia normally does (and always should) is a really bad misreading of the policy, and it seems to be becoming more and more endemic in the project. I find it difficult to trust the judgement of someone who not only makes a mistake like this but doesn't retract it when pung or messaged.
Anyway, I don't suppose you noticed what Favre did do in relation to the developments? I think it's a step in the right direction, anyway...
Hijiri 88: I do see how that comment could rub you the wrong way, but I wouldn't have taken it as a direct accusation. It was more hypothetical. Him and I don't always agree, but we do usually find ourselves on the same side of the argument. I don't think he's taken a strong stance yet, which is why I was hoping he'd weigh in with an update. What I think the other side is overlooking here, is that having a source or two that supports the ensemble label doesn't mean we should kick the term's definition to the curb. We should credit the source directly in prose – not just in citation – if the term is going to remain, since we aren't using it within the confines of its general meaning. I didn't notice the removal you linked to above until you pointed it out; yes, it's a step in the right direction, but I'm still more concerned about the lead than the body. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Roller Coaster edit
I honestly have no idea what you're referring to as a joke edit. I don't remember what I added to the rollercoaster article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ain515 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Ain515: Maybe this edit will refresh your memory. If that's not a joke and was meant to be serious, then it really needs to be placed better. Realize that we should write in paragraph form and all claims (such as that one) should be well-referenced by citing a reliable source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, now I do remember. That wasn't a joke. I'm still not exactly sure how to properly embed a citation and I'm not extremely experienced as an editor. I have a url that leads to my source for that now and you or someone else can properly add it if I can convince you that it is worth adding. I think that it is useful for kidney stone survivors like myself to know. An unexpected treatment for something as painful as a kidney stone really deserves to be known. If a rollercoaster can treat such a painful medical condition, it is worth noting in its wikipedia page. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/science/roller-coaster-kidney-stones.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ain515 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
No problem. It's great that there is a reliable source for the information, but here's the deal. The article specifically mentions that riding a roller coaster may help pass "very small" kidney stones. But it also implies that it wouldn't help a vast majority of the 300,000 emergency room cases that occur every year, simply because these involve larger kidney stones. Given that fact, I'm not sure it's all that important to the roller coaster article. Also, your edit seems to imply there were multiple studies, but this is only one, and the effectiveness of a treatment usually requires thorough investigation before it's commonly accepted knowledge. Perhaps a passing mention at the kidney stone article is more appropriate. For help with citations, WP:REFB should help you out. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Diesel
Diesel oil is named after Rudolf Diesel, the inventor of the Diesel engine. Since when is it not a proper noun? Using your reasoning, would you also write "Ford Motor Company" (named after Henry Ford) as "ford motor company", or "Morse code" (named after Samuel Morse) as "morse code"? — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T@16:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum): While many examples agree with the point you're making, some do not. There are a few exceptions to the general rule, and diesel is one of them. You really only need to check a dictionary like this one from Oxford. As shown, the term diesel is not a proper noun, even when used in a sentence as an adjective to describe engine or locomotive. Hopefully a dictionary is enough to convince you! Most of the time inventions named after their inventors are proper nouns. The term Ferris wheel is another example that shows when capitalization is required, but here are some examples when that's not the case:
Hopefully that helps! By the way, I did find it a bit strange that you would put this effort into a featured article and ignore the main diesel oil article. If you truly believed it to be correct, wouldn't you have changed it there as well? --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Matterhorn Bobsleds Article
Hi GoneIn60,
I just got your message about the Matterhorn Bobsleds article. You're right, I didn't provide a reliable source pertaining to the Matterhorn Bobsleds article. I hope to find a source backing up the claim of a Matterhorn ride at Walt Disney World if one exists, otherwise I mostly wrote speculatively, or about how I would have developed the attraction. I'm not logged in at the moment but feel free to reach me soon. Thanks for correcting, or rather trying to strengthen, this error.
Regards,
Wiscipidier
RE: ChrisGraslie
@GoneIn60: You are assuming he knows he has a talk page, which he apparently does not. Not that my solution is better, apparently he doesn't know Six Flags Fright Fest has a talk page, either. Oddjob84 (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Oddjob84: Since the discussion focuses on advice for a new editor and isn't solely about the Six Flags Fright Fest article, I felt it was better placed on their talk page. Keep in mind that anything you post on their talk page will show up as an alert for them, just like when you ping, so they'd have to miss the alert to miss the discussion. They'll have an equal chance at finding either talk page, so it's best to focus on where the discussion belongs! --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Wow, well hopefully it doesn't (or didn't) hit you too bad. I have friends that live on both the east and west coasts of Florida, so it's definitely a stressful time! Good luck... --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the good luck wish. It worked. That was my fifth hurricane, and it was by far the nastiest. As no one in Florida was spared, I hope your two friends are OK as well. I am in the middle (Orlando), and the eye passed just west of us. I lost four trees, but no other damage. Oddjob84 (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Good to hear all is well with minimal loss. So far, mostly good news from those I know in the area, aside from power outages. Hoping for the best for those that were hit the hardest. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@GoneIn60: Chris Graslie is back, and has stacked up four edits on Six Flags Fright Fest. I was going to revert them (two are factually wrong, a third just doesn't make sense), but I find I don't know how to do it as a single reversion to get back to the last stable version. I don't want to risk doing four individual reversions. How is this done? Oddjob84 (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I edited the worst of it by hand, so the page is OK as of this date/time. Still want to know how to revert multiple edits. Oddjob84 (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Oddjob84: First, I'd recommend you read all of H:REV. It goes over some of the basics, including how to pick a date/time of the article and restore to that version. There are tools listed at the end that make this a lot easier. I use Twinkle, since it doesn't require a separate app or additional rights to use. Its interface is built-in to Wikipedia, so once you enable it, you'll see additional options. For example, when I'm looking at a diff (a page that shows the differences between two versions), above the date/time stamp, I'll see some rollback options. If I choose one, it will tell me if the user I'm rolling back has had multiple edits and ask me if I want to revert all of them. You can say yes to do it in one click. Just remember to always leave something in the edit summary explaining your revert. A common abbrevation to put in your summary is RVV, which stands for "reverting vandalism".
At the Twinkle page, there's a pretty good tutorial. Let me know if you have any questions about it. Just start a new section on your talk page and ping me from there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Edit on Roller Coaster Rankings Page
Hi,
Thank you for your message regarding my recent edit of the page detailing roller coaster records. You are entirely correct that I did not provide a rationale for my edit; this was entirely my mistake, as I don't make edits very often. I can see that you have since restored my edit, and I wanted to kindly reach out to you to ensure that the correct information is displayed on the site. I removed Steel Vengeance and Twisted Timbers from the list due to their status as hybrid coasters, instead of completely wooden coasters. RMC is installing their patented steel Ibox track on existing wooden structure; thus, these coasters will not be considered wooden. I could have just edited the page again with my rationale, but I figured I would be better off leaving you, a more experienced member, to make the the necessary changes. Thanks for your efforts to keep Wikipedia reliable! I know I certainly appreciate it.
That is correct. Both were steel coasters. I'm not sure how they ended up in that category, but thanks for letting me know. I removed them. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
BitLocker
Hello
I post a message for you in Talk:BitLocker but somehow messed with sending the ping.
Ryan4491: I'm just referring to the picture itself. The subject of the picture you added is at an angle as opposed to straight vertical. Appreciate your attempt to update it, but the previous one looked more suitable for an encyclopedia. If you have a better one without that issue, feel free to add that one instead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Done The current ratings of C is adequate, but I dropped the importance to Low. In the overall scheme of things, Halloween-themed events at amusement parks are only a small piece of the larger picture. [italics mine] [cut] --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
You might want to re-think this idea. Halloween-themed events literally drive the fourth quarter earnings for the parks that have them, and make a very appreciable contribution to the yearly bottom line. Even seasonal parks now stay open until Halloween instead of closing in September. Witness the fact that these events keep growing, and more parks are adding them. As well, on a page views basis, the Halloween attractions do better than most of the "featured" articles in WikiProject Amusement Parks, and as a group do significantly better than nearly all of the "average" articles. Universal Florida (the 800 pound gorilla in this sector) has an entire department working on HHN year around, as do each of the other Universal parks. Universal, Six Flags, Knotts, Busch and Cedar Fair clearly don't think Halloween is 'small potatoes'. If I were inclined to peevishness, I might note that the average coaster contributes far less to the overall picture.
Oddjob84: The way to rate importance to WikiProject Amusement Parks is to think of it this way...If the topic amusement parks were to be the primary focus in an extensive research paper, how likely would Halloween Horror Nights at Universal theme parks be included in that research? "Low" means there's a chance, but not a very good one. "Mid" means there's a decent chance, and so on as you climb the ladder. If Universal Theme Parks were the primary focus of the research paper, there's no doubt it would be rated as "High", but to amusement parks as a whole, "Low" still seems appropriate to me.With all that said, this is just a subjective rating for a WikiProject. It holds no real weight in the scheme of things. If someday the Wikiproject grows to include dozens of active members that rely on the importance rating (as in, it tells them which articles need to the most attention and supervision), then I could see how having accurate ratings would become crucial to steering the project in the right direction. However, the participation has dwindled to just a handful of active editors, and I doubt anyone is consulting the importance list on a regular basis. If you want to change it to "Mid", feel free. It's not going to harm anything at this point in time or in the foreseeable future! --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, we sort of have two threads now. I really wasn't talking about the ratings, or Universal, or the WikiProject, or you or me, for that matter. But one thing at a time.
So if we try to write that research paper on amusement parks, how will we judge them? I can tell you how they judge themselves: it's all about the money. Sure, there are awards for the best of this or that. There are fan favorites. There are artful implementations of various amusements. The fact is, though, that none of that happened unless some CEO thought he could make money. So if we include revenue in our research, we can see what is important. For example, Revenge of the Mummy (USF) actually put an upward hump (and is credited as such in NBC/Comcast's financials) in the quarters after it opened. So did Harry Potter. HHN has had the same effect on 4Q results since it opened. I cite Universal because I have that information handy, but the trend is industry-wide, and unmistakable. See this article for example. So, yes, by that standard, it would be malpractice to not include Halloween events in our research. I mentioned above that Universal, Six Flags, Knotts, Busch and Cedar Fair all have growing Halloween events. It might have been easier for me to cite those parks who don't participate.
Should we judge inclusion based upon popularity? I cited page views above, as a way of backing into this concept. I could just as well have cited attendance, per caps, industry growth, awards, travel, and more. Again with Universal: they don't release attendance figures or financials specific to Halloween (none of the parks do), but a little math tells us this: 20,000 paid weekdays / 30,000 paid weekends = 830,000 x $100 = $83M + per caps, and that's in addition to their daytime gate.
The point I am driving at is that theme parks are massively complex machines. One coaster, one ride, one special event count for little by themselves. It is only when, in Jay Stein's words "critical mass" is reached, that they become viable. Halloween (special) events are no more or less important than the latest ride system. Halloween Horror Nights and Escape from Gringotts are both equally important. This applies industry-wide.
Incidentally, there is nothing sacred about Halloween (pun intended), I'm done with it until next July. I'm moving on to other themed entertainment articles, none having to do with either splash zones or scare zones. Oddjob84 (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Those are all good points, but again, this is a subjective rating. It's certainly a topic that's open for interpretation, and you're mileage is going to vary depending on who is doing the assessment. You mention in your last post, this has nothing to do with "the ratings, or Universal, or the WikiProject", but the way you opened this discussion was with a quote about the assessment I made. So if I'm not supposed to discuss the rating that was given, then why did you bring it up?It's important to keep in mind that the "importance" rating (if this is still what you're referring to) does not classify the subject's overall importance which you appear to be defending. That rating is only referring to one thing: the topic's importance to the WikiProject as a whole as seen through the prism of researching the WikiProject's topic. Out of 100 research papers written on amusement parks, how many of those would mention or include details about Halloween Horror Nights specifically? I would still venture to say definitely less than 20, and somewhat likely less than 10. There's certainly a chance it would be mentioned, which coincides with its "Low" rating. For me, "Mid" importance means that it sits in the 20-40 range. Does HHN classify as "Mid" importance? Depends on who you ask. It's not out of the question, which is why I suggested you go ahead and change it to that if you're convinced it is. I won't stand in the way for the reasons I mention above. The importance rating should be accurate of course, but it doesn't really have any impact on Wikipedia. It's a hidden item that is only meant to help guide members of a related WikiProject. Most visitors do not and will not notice it. If the rating is incorrect, it's not going to have a significant impact.If there was an article that covered amusement park Halloween-themed events as a whole, I would easily give that "Mid" importance or perhaps even "High". I agree with your assessment that they are a significant aspect of major amusement parks now (and have been for most of the past two decades), especially in terms of revenue. No argument there. As the focus of the discussion changes from talking about all Halloween events to just one or two, the importance level will change accordingly. Back to the research paper analogy, while there's a good chance Halloween events as a whole are mentioned, there's a lower chance that HHN is specifically addressed. It depends on how deep the research paper delves into the topic.In closing, I would emphasize that no one should take this subjective rating personally. It's not meant to disparage or belittle the topic, which I have great respect for. I just think we are looking at two very different aspects here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I actually hardly notice the "importance" ratings, and don't take them to heart. I agree they are quite subjective. And no, this post was actually never about your assessment, (it took me three months to even notice it had been done) although we have mainly discussed that. If you are interested, I will go into what really caught my attention later. First, however, let's try to complete the present discussion. If the ratings assessments are to have any meaning at all, whether internal or external, they have to make logical sense. So, to extend the paradigm above:
If our research paper is about "all theme parks" then logically, any discussion of Halloween should encompass all parks, and if HHN comes up, it is simply an example. I think I have made the case that Halloween events for "all parks" should be considered at least mid-importance or better. If our research paper is about Universal Studios specifically, then HHN rises to mid-importance or better, simply on the strength of its contribution to that business. It is only when we conflate "all parks" and HHN that a low importance rating might be appropriate, and even then, one might make the case that HHN is an industry leader, and has an out-sized impact on theme parks generally. If properly supported, that case might push it to mid-importance. Your example of 100 research papers on amusement parks doesn't really apply, as Wikipedia articles are not written that way. Take a look at the Project's Featured Content page. How do Disneyland Railroad and Antarctica: Empire of the Penguin (both mid-importance) rise to industry-wide noteworthiness? What is important to the WikiProject seems to be the actual source of the subjectivity. If the ratings are to have any value at all, they should be objectively defined and applied uniformly across the project. Oddjob84 (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
"Your example of 100 research papers on amusement parks doesn't really apply, as Wikipedia articles are not written that way."
I'm a bit confused by this comment. My example has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I was talking about the direct relationship between "HHN" and "amusement parks". If, out in the public domain, 100 research papers were written about amusement parks, then I was gauging the likelihood any of them would directly mention HHN. That has nothing to do with the way Wikipedia articles are written!
"How do Disneyland Railroad and Antarctica: Empire of the Penguin (both mid-importance) rise to industry-wide noteworthiness?"
Subject is somewhat notable to experts within the field, but it only fills in minor details to aid in the field's understanding. Non-experts are not likely to be familiar with the subject, and its impact on the industry has been modest.
Comparing mid-importance to "industry-wide noteworthiness" isn't quite accurate. The way it's defined in our project is having a "modest" impact on the industry at best.
I'll let you in on a little secret, and I mean this in a kind way when I say this... Wikipedia is full of inconsistencies. With thousands (if not tens of thousands) of articles within a WikiProject, you are going to get a lot of different people doing those assessments, and the assessments may span more than a decade involving both experienced and inexperienced editors. Anyone can set or change them at will. Often, editors are unaware there is a "bottom" status in the scale, so they are hesitant to set it to "low" thinking that rating is the lowest possible option. It's not. There are way too many articles set to "mid" and "high" as a result.My advice is that if you see one you disagree with, be bold and change it. If you get reverted, then address it on the article or WikiProject talk pages. If you want a second opinion before changing it, then that's what the WikiProject Assessment page is for. You could probably find 50 article examples in just minutes that are incorrectly set. That doesn't invalidate the arguments made here about HHN's assessment. It just means those examples have had very little oversight.By the way, I happen to agree with the Disneyland Railroad importance rating for various reasons. As for Antarctica: Empire of the Penguin, that attraction's rating should probably be reduced to "low". --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
"If the ratings are to have any value at all, they should be objectively defined and applied uniformly across the project."
Yep, go for it. That's a challenge our project and others face all the time: consistency. You're more than welcome to comb through articles and adjust them as needed. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee they'll stick (anonymous editors tend to change them periodically), and on my laundry list of things to clean up, it's a very low priority. We still have articles without importance ratings (over 1000), articles without infobox coordinates (over 200), a low number of GA and FA, and other items that I am likely to address first if I ever find the time. Here's one of the last newsletters sent out in 2013 to give you a general idea of the WikiProject's statistics we prioritize: WP:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Newsletters/Quarter 2, 2013.As for objectivity, that's something I pride myself in when making assessments. I don't let personal feelings or bias get in the way. Unfortunately, we can't say the same about every article's assessment out there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, first, the "100 amusement park papers" is a paradigm, a model. I went along with it for the sake of the illustration. If you want real world, here it is: there would never be 100 research papers on amusement parks. The topic is far too broad. 100 middle school term papers might be written on topic, and sure, maybe 20% at the highest would mention Halloween, only because kids think it's cool. If you submitted this topic to a professor in college, he would return it, telling you to narrow the topic. In the end, 100 papers entitled "Recent Trends in Amusement Park Attractions" would return about an 80% mention of special events and/or Halloween. If you seriously wanted to write a research work, you would write a hardcover book of about 600 pages, titled "American Amusement Parks: A History". And yes, it would mention Halloween as long as you wrote it after 2002 or so.. And by the way, please don't get hung up on HHN. I mentioned it because that was the original assessment, and because it is the 800 pound gorilla. I am really talking about special events generally, and Halloween-themed special events particularly. There is no point ignoring Disney, Six Flags, Busch, et al. And lastly, we are, in the end, talking about Wikipedia.
Yes, you're right, mid-importance is wrong. Now that I look at the ratings, it should be "High". I do disagree with the low importance rating, but not for any of the reasons you may have assumed, and absolutely not because I have anything overly invested in HHN. To the extent that page views are any indication of what information non-experts are seeking, the top several attractions in the Halloween topic absolutely bury the Disneyland Railroad. And of course I know I could change it, but that would be pointless, for precisely the reasons you have outlined.
Given that the ratings are wholly subjective, inconsistent, and a low priority, why not remove them altogether? A bot could do it in minutes. That would be my suggestion. I, too, have a very long list of amusement, themed entertainment, and theatre articles which need rescue, and even changing HHN alone would be a poor use of my time. I know you do make an effort to be objective, and I think you are both intelligent and self-aware enough to do so. That's why we are having this conversation in the first place. Oddjob84 (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I think a lot has been lost in the shuffle in trying to explain the reasoning behind the assessment. It would be much easier to have the discussion verbally instead of writing back and forth. I pulled the 100 number out of thin air just to demonstrate the thinking behind the assessment. It wasn't meant to stand for a real-word possibility, nor is it any official method used to do an assessment. It's just how I think about things.We could switch it up, as you have suggested, and take books into account. I own 4 that were written to cover the history of amusement parks, and they were all written in the 2000s. Though each one covers modern-day amusement parks and their evolution, none mention Halloween-themed events at the parks. The broad topic of "amusement parks" doesn't usually give a book covering that topic enough time to delve that deep into things. I suspect as time goes by, new books will be more likely to bring it up, as I agree that Halloween-themed events across the industry are getting more attention each year. However, the point I was trying to make is that while a book (or research paper) might mention their presence and impact as a whole, the chance that they'll give specific examples and mention HHN is low. So if we had an article on Wikipedia that covered Halloween-themed events as a whole, its rating would be "mid" and maybe even "high". However, HHN would remain low for the reason I just gave in that example. It doesn't seem that point is getting across, but I think we've exhausted any patience in trying to move any further on that – we're stuck at a crossroads there. If you feel the need to change it to "mid", go right ahead. I would only stand in the way of "high", but I can live with "mid".As far as removing the ratings all together, I don't think that's a good idea. They exist to help WikiProject members maintain organization, understanding which articles need the most attention and supervision. They are there strictly to benefit those trying to work together as a group. As I've said before, this WikiProject is pretty dead. There are less than 15 active members (that I can see), and of those, very few are active on a weekly basis. While the assessments may have little impact right now, they may matter down the road should the project ever regain the footing it once had. For that reason, I'd say leave them in place. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree we have taken this (written) conversation about as far as is useful as to the original topic. I am still a bit stuck on the ratings. If they are only useful to project members to tell what is important, I don't see them succeeding. Those in the project are aficionados or experts, yet we are writing Wikipedia for the uninitiated in search of information. Should we be the only voices telling the users what is important? That is why I am stuck on page views: they tell us what the users think is important. Here's a bit of my sample: Halloween 3,004,616 (no banner); Trick-or-treating 293,308 (no banner); Halloween Horror Nights 46,413 (low); Knotts Scary Farm 18,672 (low); Six Flags Fright Fest 16,228 (low); Haunted Attraction (simulated) 11,793 (mid); Haunted Castle 4,102 (mid); Howl-O-Scream 3,727 (not rated). The other 15 run from 4,300 down to 189 with low or (mostly) not rated, but with banners.
Not to end on a down note, but in digging around, many Wikiprojects are in a similar downward spiral, or have gone completely inactive. Reversing the trend starts with figuring out why. Oddjob84 (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
"Those in the project are aficionados or experts..."
Not necessarily. While everyone that joins has some kind of interest, the amount of experience they bring to the table varies significantly. No one is certainly what I'd call an "expert", and since anyone can add their name to the list of members, there's no guarantee that's ever going to be the case.
"Should we be the only voices telling the users what is important?"
Just so we're clear and on the same page, the importance rating is only for WikiProject members. It's there for the sole purpose of organization. Anyone is welcome to adjust the rating as they see fit. Every member (and even non-member) has the right to change it at will. If you don't find them to be useful, simply ignore them. You can read more about general WikiProject goals and organization at WP:WikiProject Council/Guide. For information about assessments, visit WP:COUNCIL/AFAQ.
It's true that there are a lot of inactive WikiProjects, but there are three times as many that are active. You can see that here: Category:WikiProjects by status. I'm not sure about trends, so I'm not going to touch that one!As for page views, they can be important to some extent and hold some weight in the discussion. That's pretty much all I'll say on that. Any disagreement on ratings is best handled at the WikiProject's talk page, where active editors can form a consensus. But then again, if you don't put much stock into the rating, or if the WikiProject isn't very active, that's probably not going to be worth your time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
JudgeJake40: You may want to read the Wikipedia article on the Roller Coaster DataBase. RCDB.com has been around for quite some time and has a history of fact-checking the data it contains. It has also been mentioned by many publications as a recognized authority. WikiProject Amusement Parks typically regards the website as reliabe, and it has been cited in thousands of Wikipedia articles related to roller coasters and amusement parks. Because of its vast presence, I would suggest discussing the site in more detail at the WikiProject's talk page first to see if any editors there were involved in past discussions. Afterwards, if you feel that it's needed, the subject can be brought up at WP:RSN to request opinions from a wider audience. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
User removing RCDB citations
User:JudgeJake40 seems to be on a personal crusade to remove RCBD citations. He has edited a couple of hundred pages in the last few days. Some of the material is useful but a lot of the edits consist of deleted sources or changing of stats without citations. Can you help?—JlACEer (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi a lot of the stats on RCDB do not match the ones on the official website so that's why I'm removing them. If the stats match on both sites then I leave them. If the stats are wrong on a RDCB page it isn't really a reliable source to link there. A lot of there info is outdated and wrong. I would be open to having a further discussion on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudgeJake40 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
JudgeJake40: I'm not sure if you saw my comments above, but I laid out several reason why we consider RCDB to be a reliable source. Parks and their official websites (especially for older roller coasters) may measure statistics differently than their peers, so specifications and records can be misleading or inaccurate when reading them on a park's website.
Also you should be aware of Wikipedia's policy WP:PSTS, which explains the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, and clarifies why secondary sources are preferred. The park's website is a primary source, and while acceptable in the absence of reliable, secondary sources, it would not be considered more reliable than RCDB. When primary and secondary sources disagree, we choose to cite the secondary source. Before going through dozens of articles and mass-changing them, I strongly suggest you take my advice above and discuss at the WikiProject's talk page to gain consensus. See WP:BRD for help understanding why these edits may be reverted and what the etiquette is on Wikipedia for handling these situations. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@GoneIn60: Just because RCDB has been mentioned in various articles, does not make them a reliable source. Take for example an email that I exchanged between myself and RCDB where I got the explanation that they use a coaster's sign as their main source for a coaster's name rather than websites, maps, ACE Landmarks, etc. Also can you show me where it says "When primary and secondary sources disagree, we choose to cite the secondary source". Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudgeJake40 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Your account has been linked to Hawkeye75, who has been blocked indefinitely. I was going to advise for a third time that you discuss RCDB at the WikiProject or at WP:RSN, but looking at your history, it became clear that you don't agree with the concept of WP:CON and WP:BRD. Continuing this would be a waste of time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, that turned out to be an interesting development. It's too bad that everything was reversed as having the coaster logos added to a lot of the pages was helpful. I almost wish we had the opportunity to pick and choose which edits to keep!—JlACEer (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, GoneIn60. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
06. Gelsenkirchen: Looping railway loop at Carnival. Cars go in loop Railway (coaster with two circles, in the car driving around upside down. Cars have roof). Recording at speeds from cars.
The footage of the coaster starts a 4:47 minutes into the video.
Appreciate the info, but ACE (American Coaster Enthusiasts) which is a recognized authority in the field, is cited as the source for the claim. You can read it here:
There may be other factors in play you're not aware of. For example, the loops on that ride in the video are circular instead of vertical. Also the train consists of one car, and the track is not a "modern" roller coaster track. So the claim that it is the first modern roller coaster with consecutive vertical loops still appears to be a true statement. In any case, reliable sources would need to sort this out for us. We can't perform original research to determine this ourselves. Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. If you'd like to get additional opinions, I suggest starting a discussion on the article's talk page and/or at WT:WikiProject Amusement Parks. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of Nero Burning ROM from Nero AG.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Nero Burning ROM from Nero AG.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
On the Gwazi article, you changed it back to “the” Invadr. Coaster enthusiasts should never use “the” before saying the name of a coaster unless it has “the” in the name (examples: “The Beast”, “The Joker”). Also Goliath at La Ronde shouldn’t be called a hyper coaster because neither its first drop or its lift hill are 200 feet or above. ROBLOXfan123 (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
ROBLOXfan123: Placing "the" back in front of InvadR was unintentional. I went back and removed it. Speaking of Gwazi, you've now attempted to insert SBNO as the status on at least two occasions. See the discussion at WT:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3#Status fields in attraction articles, where it was decided to stop using that term. One of the main arguments is that fan jargon should be avoided when possible per WP:JARGON.As for Goliath at La Ronde, I think you're confusing the fact that the B&M model is called "Hyper Coaster", which is what's listed in the infobox and on RCDB.com. However, you're right that is not classified as a hypercoaster, which is an industry term for roller coasters that are at least 200 ft tall. You can see this explained in the article at Goliath (La Ronde)#Track. The infobox entry you keep changing, by the way, is for the model not the classification.And what's the deal with GP? What does that even stand for? --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
GP stands for General Public. People who have no knowledge of roller coasters and think they are too dangerous and think a coaster is a copy of another coaster (example: They would say Kingda Ka is a copy of Top Thrill Dragster) would fall under that category. They even think Larson Superloops are roller coasters and that coaster trains can get stuck on a vertical loop. They call inversions loop de loops. ROBLOXfan123 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
You did ask what GP stood for, so I answered your question. I wasn’t really trying to troll. And yes I do agree with the other stuff.ROBLOXfan123 (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Your condescending definition of what "general public" means and then asking if that's what I fall under is the definition of trolling. By the way, you may want to read WP:THREAD to see how replies on talk pages work. There's no need to create a new section for every reply; just indent it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Victim names
Where was that policy (which I completely disagree with, BTW) specified? I saw discussion on the talk page for the Cedar Fair incidents but there was no consensus at the time. 68.156.95.34 (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It is from consensus among the editors of amusement park-related articles that summary articles do not need to include victim names for the reader to get the full understanding of what occurred. If there were a full article prepared on an individual incident, the victims' names would be appropriate. Further, Wikipedia guidelines, such as WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, suggest that individuals who are notable for just a single thing (such as being involved in an incident) don't rise to Wikipedia's definition of notability. --McDoobAU9311:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you McDoob for weighing in. Your comments from years ago on the subject are the reason why I've continued to remove names when I see them.@ 68.156.95.34: There isn't an explicit policy that forbids mentioning names, but as McDoob mentions, it's best to avoid them when possible. WP:1E, which is referenced by WP:BLP1E, even states, "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person", when that person is only notable for one event. These incident list articles are doing just that: focusing on the events. Names aren't outright banned by policy, but they are indeed discouraged. Common sense also applies. What value is gained by adding the name? Does it benefit a reader's understanding of what occurred? The main argument here is that it doesn't add significant value, and those searching for information would not be entering search terms that include the victim's name. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I would say that knowing the victims' names are valuable in and of themselves. It helps readers search elsewhere on the Internet for more info by using their names. 68.156.95.34 (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
It's a fair point, but realize that any reader on Wikipedia can refer to the sources that are cited for the incident. They'll find the names there, and they'll be clicking on them anyway if in fact they're looking for more info. Also, news articles may typically mention name(s), but an encyclopedia rarely has any reason to. Our policies and guidelines take a cautious stance to avoid giving undue recognition to individuals that are only known for their involvement in one particular event. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Notability is a policy I've disagreed with since day one. It's one of the reasons I'm grateful for the development of Everipedia. 68.156.95.34 (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
As a side-note, what about those individuals who would rather put such an incident behind them? In the vast majority of cases, they didn't cause it, and were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. As GoneIn60 noted, the information is available for anyone who cares to look for it, since any summary should have a link that backs it up. I routinely go through these articles and remove incidents that do not have a link (and there are plenty of them). --McDoobAU9311:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Until the links go dead. Readers shouldn't have to scour the Wayback Machine or spotty newspaper archives to find the victims' names. 68.156.95.34 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Yet, the reason you wanted the name in the first place would be to scour the internet for more info. So what's the big deal? You're going to "scour" anyway. If we're talking about an incident that happened a long time ago, having the name isn't really going to change how hard you have to search. Take the accident that happened on New Texas Giant, for example. A Google search of "Texas Giant" death actually turns up a lot more hits than "Texas Giant" "Jacquielynn Floyd". Also, as long as a major publication/newspaper is cited to begin with, chances are it will take you less than 2 minutes to pull up an archived copy on Wayback. As I was typing this, I noticed that the first reference at New Texas Giant for the accident was dead (see this edit). Just had to copy/paste that URL at Wayback to find an archived copy. Piece of cake.The flipside of your concern is also worth considering. If links tend to go dead without proper archiving, then the last thing we want is an unverified name stuck in the article. That's a lot more serious than an unverified description. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@68.156.95.34: Some sites have higher standards than others, and that's OK. It doesn't mean one is necessarily better, it's just that each is targeting different audiences. If Everipedia is your cup of tea, awesome! --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Twisted Cyclone length
You changed my edit for the Twisted Cyclone length back to the original.
My proof is in this video below which is a copy of the Six Flags over Georgia press conference recorded and posted to "Midway Mayhem's" Youtube page.
Appreciate the source. The information appears to be legit, but it is interesting in how he states it was increased from 2,300 to 2,600 feet. Where did 2,300 come from? The original press release and every major article I've come across all stated 2,400 feet as the original length. So while the new 2,600-foot projection could be correct, I think we should wait for a better source, particularly one that's in print. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so we can afford to wait for well-vetted information. Besides, if it's important enough to know before the ride opens, then other sources will report it. Also keep in mind that RCDB.com usually withholds full ride specs until after it opens. They independently verify them, and as a secondary source, we tend to prefer their claims over the park. Parks often get carried away when marketing a ride. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I've already gotten into it with the admins on this one, which is why I'm not touching anything that user does (by my personal choice). --McDoobAU9312:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't blame you. I think we've covered all the bases this time around, although truthfully, a closer examination of that user's edits should have made their disruption pretty obvious. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Cedar Point In Pop Culture
Hello there -
In 2013 (!) you removed something from the Cedar Point amusement park page that I had added.
Here is what I added:
Popular culture
Cedar Point has been mentioned in several movies, TV shows, and books:
In the ABC series "Homefront," set in the period following WWII, the 4/15/92 episode "Songs Unsung Are Sweetest" makes reference to main characters Michael and Ruth Sloan having previously overnighted at Cedar Point before they were married.
Appletondad: I will review it when I get time, but yes it's likely myself or another editor watching the page would have removed it if there was no source supporting it. When you have time, you should review WP:REFB, which is a beginner's guide showing how to add citations on Wikipedia. Also, keep in mind that trivia has to be kept to a minimum in an article. You can imagine that a park that's been around for a 100+ years could have a lot of it, so much so that it can easily take over an article. We have to include only the most notable entries that received a lot of coverage in reliable sources, and there's some editors that don't believe any trivia should be in Wikipedia articles. I'll see what I can do. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Amusement Dark
Hey! 5 years ago I made a stub in my sandbox regarding Amusement Dark at Cedar Fair. There are a fair amount of reliable sources that mentioned "Amusement Dark" but I don't know if its worth creating its own article since I don't know how much content one could possibly mention about this topic. Thoughts?
Dom497: That's a good question. It seems like at first, the "Amusement Dark" initiative may have been an internal codename of sorts. I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that they are continuing to market this as an external brand name. I'm also not seeing a whole lot about "Amusement Dark" in the references you've listed. But on the other hand, if they follow through on multiple installations across the Cedar Fair park chain, we should have a lot more information over the next few years. It's possible though, that they are waiting to see how well-received the first two installations are before pushing full steam ahead. If it were up to me, I'd probably wait a bit longer, at least until the next installation. Covering three different locations/rides in a brief overview of each, as well as manufacturers Art Engineering and Triotech, should be enough to fill a short article at that point. Just my 2¢.
By the way, you may want to update one of the broken ref links you have for Sandusky Register. I think this one may have been its intended target. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, ok. So yeah, since they have a logo on their public website, it's not just an internal codename. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
New Demon effects worth adding?
Recently A few original effects were restored to Demon in Illinois. These include sound effects both in the lighted tunnel and the Demon head cave. Steven Wilson, author of "Images of Modern America: Six Flags Great America" said on his facebook page "Yes. I digitized the Demon sound effects from an open-reel audio tape years ago. Not too long ago I found out that SFGAm was looking to restore the original audio effects. I sent them the audio files and now the sound effects are back!"
Lukebenne: Appreciate the info, however, it would be best if a secondary reliable source published the info, which would accomplish two things. First, it would be considered much more reliable than a forum post. Second, it would show that the detail is significant and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. A passing mention in a forum or social media post unfortunately means it's a rather trivial detail at the moment and would likely be challenged/removed over time without proper support (by Wikipedia's standards). --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Factual information according to whom? RCDB.com along with other sources disagree with the edits you're making. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Reshuffling sentences
Hello, the significant reshuffling of many sentences in the Plot section Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom in one of my recents edits to it was not all on purpose. I began editing before your edits and I did not realize someone else was editing. I only realized my mistake once I saved it and found I had shuffled more details than I expected. I take time while editing to avoid mistakes. It won't happen again. I do not have experience editing articles about films and I have had difficult finding my way around it. I will move to editing my usual nature-related articles again. Achat1999 (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Achat1999: Thanks for taking the time to explain that. It makes sense now. Your contributions are appreciated, and I certainly don't want you to feel discouraged or unwilling to edit non-nature-related articles. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. It would be easier if you give me some tips on editing movie-related articles. It is a little more difficult than the articles I am used to editing.
If you ever have any questions, feel free to drop me a line any time. One thing to keep in mind about plot summaries is that they should stay within 400-700 words. You can read more MoS guidelines at MOS:FILM which should answer many of the questions/concerns you'll encounter along the way. You can also join WP:FILM and/pr post questions to other editors at WT:FILM if you want to get others' perspective. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Talk pages
Please see WP:TPO for more, but please pay particular attention to "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission". Please do not remove another editor's comments. If you believe them to be problematic, you should either talk with the editor directly, or you can (if you believe it violates a policy or guideline) bring it to the attention of an administrator. —Locke Cole • t • c06:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Locke Cole: I am well aware of that guideline and was invoking the third bullet point: "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism". There is a fine line between a merely uncivil comment and obvious trolling found in this remark. In the context of this discussion, it was clearly an example of the latter. Also in the process of objecting, you apparently missed the personal attack right above your comment here. I don't plan to take further action, but I'm certainly justified to do so. We'll see how the editor proceeds moving forward. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
His comment was neither incivil nor trolling. I did see his comment, however, you instigated that response by removing his comment in the first place. Don't do that. Next time, assume good faith and either remove yourself from the conversation if you feel there's no way forward, or report the conduct if you feel it is inappropriate. As to your claim that you're justified to take "further action", please do. I'd love it if you asked an administrator if removing another editors comments was within your rights. Please let me know once you've made a notification to either an administrator directly or to WP:AN/I. —Locke Cole • t • c17:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed the part in my response that I do not plan to take further action at this time. If the editor continues to be disruptive, discourteous, and trolling in nature, my stance on that may change. It's within your right to object to the comment removal, but that doesn't mean it wasn't covered under WP:TPO's third bullet point. We'll just have to agree to disagree that it was a form of unnacceptable trolling; that's all this is, and I've moved on. You should as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
QuackGuru
Regarding this, sorry if I bugged you by pinging you about QuackGuru. It's just that certain editors (like yourself) have had the experience I've had with him with and his odd interpretations of the rules. And so only we understand what it's like interacting with/debating with him. For whatever reason, he seems to always think that we cannot use any word that the source does not use, despite the fact doing so would lead to WP:Copyvio issues and overquoting. I haven't yet looked to see how he writes articles, but if he's never or rarely using his own wording, that's a problem. If you think you can be of any help at Talk:Trypophobia#Latest changes, then please comment. And I apologize if that lotus seed plant image bothers you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn: It probably wouldn't be appropriate for me to weigh in on this discussion per WP:CANVAS, as this new discussion isn't related closely enough to the previous discussion I was involved in. However, if QuackGuru doesn't think paraphrasing is allowed or that quotation marks should be used to surround direct quotes, then clearly he's on the wrong side of what any reasonable consensus would conclude. I'd wait to see how he responds, and depending on whether or not you think you two can reach an understanding, you may want to consider dispute resolution starting with a third opinion and working your way up. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)And no worries about the pic...it actually doesn't bother me!
I understand where you are coming from with regard to WP:CANVASS (and felt you might be hesitant or object on that rationale). Editors are allowed to ask or suggest that another editor weigh in without it being a WP:CANVASS violation, but my above post isn't neutral on QuackGuru. In pinging you and contacting you on your talk page, I was focused on his interpretations of the rules. Different interpretations of the rules is something I am likely to post a neutral note about at one or more relevant guidelines or policy talk pages. I don't use WP:30, but I do use RfCs (as you know). In this case, if an RfC is needed, it will be after asking for commentary from relevant guidelines or policy talk pages. How QuackGuru will respond is predictable. I will wait, but I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this. These days, I don't have much patience to debate, debate and debate. And QuackGuru is known to wear editors' patience thin. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I get it. Some editors are a net loss (or more appropriately, a net drain) to Wikipedia, while others are simply misguided. Unfortunately, we waste a lot of time determining which camp they fall under, but it's the approach we're asked to take. Nothing wrong with an RfC, of course, but I would at least give QG time to respond on the article talk page. After all, it's one of the prerequisites before escalating to an RfC. Good luck! --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The reason I did those edits on that page was not neccessarily because every other movie page on this wiki was formatted that same way, but because I felt the way it looks right now didn't look formatted properly. Plus, according to WP:FILMLEAD, the lead sentence already complied with the minimum requirements needed (including the genres), and labeling the film a children's film didn't really qualify since that was primarily for marketing purposes. Hope this clears any confusion or lack therof up. IceWalrus236 (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
IceWalrus236: Thanks for the explanation, but anytime you string 3 or more adjectives together without commas, there can be issues. It is an odd structure anyway, so finding another way to break them up is preferred. So while we want to meet the requirements of WP:FILMLEAD, we also want to be weary of proper grammar. As for the genre, we have three reliable sources we can look at: AFI, BFI, and AllMovie. It just so happens that they don't agree with one another, and at the film project when this happens, past discussions have preferred to go with AllMovie. If you'd like to start a new discussion about the genre on the article's talk page or at WT:FILM, please do. I'm flexible in that regard, but the sentence structure shouldn't go back to how it was. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Ways to improve Mine Blower
Hi, I'm Rosguill. GoneIn60, thanks for creating Mine Blower!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hi GoneIn60, thanks for writing this article. I'm going to go ahead and mark it as reviewed so that it becomes listed by search engines. I'm also tagging a few issues where the article could be improved: specifically, it could use more citations (especially in the Ride Stats section), and some of the content currently comes off as promotional per [WP:PEACOCK] (such as the comments about Gravity Group).
Thanks for helping improve wikipedia!
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Rosguill: Please check the edit history. I created the redirect a while back but had nothing to do with its transformation into an article. Furthermore, templating is not necessary for veteran editors. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mine Blower until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
My understanding is that what we discuss applies to the plot. If you believe the cast needs a separate discussion, please start one and state the arguments that are specific. In general: the discussion is stale - how do we move it forward? Currently the article plot follows NONE of the discussed options. --Vigilius (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, these areas don't see a lot of activity anymore. I'd try dropping a notice at WT:WikiProject Amusement Parks, and if that doesn't lead to any additional feedback, maybe ping Ahecht, an active editor with template experience who has weighed in before on matters concerning this project. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, GoneIn60. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
We go by RCDB as a reliable, secondary source over primary sources when there is a conflict. Remember, primary sources often market themselves in ways that benefit them. However, such marketing material may contain information that the general public and others disagree with. In this situation, we are choosing to abide by the information published here: https://rcdb.com/4529.htm
If you have a problem with that, start a new discussion at Talk:Cedar Point. Others can get involved and weigh in if needed. Also, I advise you read WP:PSTS about how we look at the different kinds of reliable sources out there. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.
I just wanted to send you a quick note to let you know I've been unblocked and to thank you for your supportive comments at the ANI discussion. Thank you! Huggums537 (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
