Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Roller Coasters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Walkthroughs

I'm intrigued by the ideas presented in the template, but I did have a question regarding the walk-through item. Should that be a bullet list (as in Goliath) or a narrative, such as Top Thrill Dragster? Which does the project think would be better? I may rewrite Goliath's list and ask that the project members get a look at it and see how it looks. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

To stand any chance of passing GA, it will need to be in prose. The hard task is to give a brief synopsis of the ride without going into excessive detail about the height of every element. I'd say go for it, and do let us know on here when you're done too; I look forward to seeing it :) Seaserpent85 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Finished ... please feel free to comment. I know it has all the hill heights, but at the same time that's almost all the coaster has, its airtime hills (not that there's anything wrong with that, of course). If that works, I'll go ahead and start working on the other coasters I know. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
A bit of feedback:
  • I'd say you have too much detail in there, as well as a lot of "jargon" - eg. overbanked horseshoe, bunny hops etc. Either wikilink these to relevant pages or get rid of them.
  • Maybe consider changing coaster to roller coaster, whilst most enthusiasts use the term "coaster", there needs to be consistency here.
  • You need to distinguish between whether the "train" turns left or the ride itself turns left - the subject switches back and forth a couple of times during the walkthrough.
Don't let those put you off, they are probably overly picky! Other than those points, I'd say carry on the good work :) Seaserpent85 10:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I'm open to constructive criticism, and these comments give me something to work with on this particular article, and then I can take it and move forward to others. It does use a lot of simple jargon, but jargon nonetheless. We're striving for encyclopedic here. I'll let you know when I've made my changes, and thanks for the input! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Update: I've finished revising it, and I've also revised the walkthrough for Kraken using some of the same ideas. Please take a look and see what else can be done. I think the point of view and terminology is more consistent now, and easier to understand. Thanks! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment at Talk:Evolution of roller coasters

A couple weeks ago I made what I thought were some pretty good proposals at the talk page for Evolution of roller coasters on what to do with the article. So far only one person has responded, and only indirectly. Could some of you fine folks take a look and comment on my ideas? Look for where it says "MY PROPOSAL" under the section Time for a tidy up?. Thanks. --Skylights76 (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely forgot about this, will take a look later for you. Also, if you want I can put this in the newsletter as it goes out in a couple of days. You'll hopefully get some more feedback that way. Seaserpent85 10:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That would be cool, thanks! --Skylights76 (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February's Article Improvement Drive

Please nominate any articles you feel would be appropriate for next month's Improvement Drive here - it'll start in a few days and so far there are no nominations. Only guidelines are that the article needs to be relevant to the project and that the subject has sources available. Seaserpent85 10:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I nominate Roller coaster for February's article improvement drive. I believe that this article is the most important article in the Wikiproject so it should be upgraded to GA-class if not FA-class.Coaster1983 (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Done! :) Seaserpent85 14:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coasters from A-Z

{{helpme}}

Hey, everyone! Well, I was wondering if you could all come to my userpage to help contribute to my list of roller coasters from A-Z. It would be great if you would help, guys! Thanks, everyone! --CPGACoast (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this until today. Could you please explain what you're trying to accomplish? You can find a list of roller coasters via using the category features here at Wikipedia, and you can find an even more complete list at RCDB. I'd personally rather concentrate on improving the articles here at Wikipedia than trying to build up an arbitrary list on someone's user page. That is, unless you have some plans to move it to article space at some time or some such. I guess I'm just confused what you're trying to accomplish, and hope you can clarify a bit. Thanks! --Rehcsif (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spam and reliable sources

Hi. I just came across an IP editor 84.92.95.168 whose edits all appear to be to promote a group of related websites (themeparkjunkies.co.uk alton-towers.net and thorpeparkinsider.co.uk) I deleted some of the links (the ones on individual rides in particular did not appear to have anything significant to add to the articles) but found at least one addition was put in as a reference (see [1]) and thought I should check in with you experts on the appropriateness of these links as external links and reliable sources. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 15:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Note similar messaage left at WT:WikiProject Amusement Parks‎. No need to respond in both places.

See WP:EL for the official guidelines. In general, an article on a park or coaster should have only a couple or three links. One of them should be to the official park's website. Any additional links should only be provided if and only if they add significant value over and above what the park's website and the wikipedia article itself offer, OR if they're used as a significant source for the article in general. If someone is sprinkling links to a fansite on arbitrary pages they should indeed be removed. --Rehcsif (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rerating Requested

Although I have absolutely no idea why, I have contributed extensively to Mick Doohan's Motocoaster and I feel it should be increased to C-class at this point. I ran out of sources I can actually get a hold of, so I figured I'd make a suggestion. KV(Talk) 01:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Cyclone (Dreamworld) is also updated and should definately be upgraded. Seems similar to a B-rated article I have seen. KV(Talk) 00:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)