Talk:Oblivion (roller coaster): Difference between revisions

Line 47: Line 47:

==GA Reassessment==

{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Oblivion (roller coaster)/1}}

== Inflation value ==

{{ping|JlACEer}} Hi! Regarding the inclusion of the inflation-adjusted value in the article, I wanted to say a few things.

Firstly, the [[Special:Diff/1319913192|edit]] which you reverted was simply me cleaning up how the inflation values were formatted, and didn’t change the actual content much. Given your edit description I assume you were meaning to actually remove the inflation value, which was added a few edits prior. Given this, I have restored the previous version, but if removing the inflation-adjusted value is the correct way forward, we can do that.

You mentioned that consensus in the WikiProject had decided not to adjust values for inflation. I may be missing something, but all I was able to find was [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 2#Adding Inflation To Attraction Infobox’s|this discussion]] from 2014, where it was decided not to add inflation-adjusted values to ”infoboxes”, with the reason cited being not making the already large infobox more cluttered.

I personally think, however, that it benefits pages to have the inflation-adjusted value in the prose, as I don’t believe it adds clutter, and instead helps readers get a perspective for how much the construction of the attraction cost the park in today’s money.

Additionally, you asked ‘why 2023’ – I did not choose 2023 as the comparison value, it’s all automatically handled by [[Template:Inflation]]. 2023 is just the most recent year which that template’s dataset has, so that is what will be displayed until a more up-to-date value is added to the template. [[User:Plighting Engineerd|<span style=”color:yellow;text-shadow: 0 0 5px #000,1px 1px 0px #000;”>Plighting Engineerd</span>]] ([[User talk:Plighting Engineerd|talk]]) 16:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Suggest moving the stuff about fantasy land into Alton Towers#X-Sector, with a bit of condensing? camelworks 16:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead and infobox have different information on the minimum height to ride. Please can someone with knowledge of the ride fix this? Stifle (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recently had an edit to this page reverted. My source (Guinness World Record Book 1999, p185, ISBN 0-85112-070-9) indicates that the ride is 87.5°. The RCDB shows 87.0°. I’m not sure which source takes precedence? –Anonymous Editor 06:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it was reverted because no source was provided with the edit. The one you’re mentioning now would take precedence over RCDB, in my opinion. I would first correct it in the article body citing that source (see WP:CITE for help), and then afterwards, go ahead and change it in the infobox as well at the top of the article (no source needed there if it’s already cited in the body). —GoneIn60 (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Ias, pinging you to this conversation regarding this revert. The problem with the T-park source is that it is a personal website which falls under WP:USERG. If the author is a recognized expert in the field, we can assess this further, but for now it doesn’t appear to be reliable. It is still cited in the article to cover the marketing aspect of the ride (for now), but I think a better source is needed in the long run. Are you aware of any others that might take its place, or do you have any insight into the author that wrote this piece? Thank you. —GoneIn60 (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the T-Park source appears to be a review of the Oblivion ride, so it can be cited for reviewing stuff. The marketing part of it can be covered, but since this is a review, the article should have the source’s opinions on everything about the ride. If the article has info about the coaster from this reference, then the reference’s opinion should be mentioned in conjunction. «2nd|ias» 22:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there’s any refs to replace this… Hmmm… Perhaps when there’s information involved, another source can be used instead. For opinions, it’s fine using T-Park. For both info and reviews, probably both T-Park and non-T-Park sources are to be used. The author of the review is fine and all, but when he does T-Park pages, the review part of it is what’s most reliable about the reference, but other parts of the site go the other way. One thing to note: when citing info from reviews, another source must be used in conjunction with T-Park. «2nd|ias» 22:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But yet the author’s name isn’t clearly cited in the T-Park page, so I can’t exactly be 100% confirmative about this. If a T-Park page is written from any one of the reliable-source authors, then the site can be used as a reference, otherwise not really. «2nd|ias» 22:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s true that the ride was critically and commercially successful, but there should be reliable sources that say so. «2nd|ias» 22:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited the article while being in this discussion, so my contributions may give you an idea. «2nd|ias» 23:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Ias, thanks for weighing in. Reviews can be reliable sources of information, much like we include film reviews from expert critics, but several questions remain before we can say this one in particular is reliable. First, T-park is a defunct website. Clicking the ref link actually opens an archived version of the page, so that’s worth noting. When it was active, did this T-park have an editorial team that peer-reviewed articles that were published? Editorial oversight is typically a requirement unless the author is a recognized expert in the field, which leads me to my next question. Can it be verified that the author was a “recognized expert”, meaning sources we call “reliable” have name-dropped this author or used him/her as a source in the past?If we don’t have clear answers about any of that, then we cannot confidently say T-park (or this review) is a reliable source. —GoneIn60 (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell from their contact page [1] that T-Park operated as a group of people. It is possible that they had such a team, considering that the Oblivion review was finely written. «2nd|ias» 19:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the Oblivion review page seemed like it was peer-reviewed. Perhaps the team did some dedication to improving the writing quality of their T-Park webpages. «2nd|ias» 19:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s a challenge to any Wikipedia editor: find any reliable sources that mention T-Park. Yes, you heard me say it, “reliable sources”, including ones Wikipedia normally knows to be reliable. Bonus points if an T-Park author’s name is mentioned in such sources. «2nd|ias» 20:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe many are watching this page, but yes, that’s the challenge I’m proposing as well. Until someone uncovers more information about T-Park, we cannot really accept it as a reliable source at this time. Even self-published sources like personal websites can be well written or consist of multiple authors, but unless the site/author has been recognized by the industry or other reliable sources in some manner, it violates WP:RSSELF. We can revisit if any new information comes to light. —GoneIn60 (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you change the stats in the introduction that stealth and the big one are the fastest as newly opened hyperia at thorpe park is the new fastest and tallest in the united kingdom. 92.207.184.242 (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs, in the “Ride experience” section. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, the ride experience section is akin to a plot summary in the sense that the ride itself is the primary source for the material. Basic descriptions of the layout don’t require sources, but as you can see at Millennium Force when it was promoted to FA, a minimal number of sources are needed for specific measurements, element names, and so forth. These sections are also often accompanied by an official POV video created by the amusement park (which won’t last forever, so hopefully we can archive those eventually).Also, participation at WP:APARKS has been in decline over the years, despite an occasional spurt here and there. Most of the drive to get amusement-related articles promoted to GA and FA were done by editors that are no longer active, and very few with experience watch the pages. They fall victim to drive-bys that add erroneous, uncited info. It might be more worthwhile to try to tidy them up if you can spare the time. Thanks! —GoneIn60 (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60: Unfortunately, I do not have the time nor the will to make the necessary improvements. As you point out above, some of the prose in the “Ride experience” is akin to plot, but other information (like “The turn uses a horizontal chain mechanism not used on any other B&M dive coaster”) does need to be cited. Are you or any other editor willing to address the concerns? Z1720 (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won’t for quite some time unfortunately (busy outside of Wikipedia). If no one else responds soon, then I recommend restoring the “Ride experience” section to its former reviewed version. The ride hasn’t been modified since that review. That would be preferred over demotion if the rest of the article seems fine. — GoneIn60 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60: Thanks for your work on this. There are still lots of uncited statements in the “Ride experience” section: while some might be covered under MOS:PLOT and don’t require citations, there are other statements that do. I would also suggest expanding the lead to include all aspects of the article. Are you (or anyone else reading this) still interested in working on this? Z1720 (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t anticipate I’ll have any time to work on this in the near future. I can leave a note at WT:APARKS, but if there’s no response within a week or so, I’d go ahead and take it to GAR. — GoneIn60 (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The lead also needs to be expanded to include all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all unsourced statements and will soon work on expanding the lead. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JlACEer: Hi! Regarding the inclusion of the inflation-adjusted value in the article, I wanted to say a few things.

Firstly, the edit which you reverted was simply me cleaning up how the inflation values were formatted, and didn’t change the actual content much. Given your edit description I assume you were meaning to actually remove the inflation value, which was added a few edits prior. Given this, I have restored the previous version, but if removing the inflation-adjusted value is the correct way forward, we can do that.

You mentioned that consensus in the WikiProject had decided not to adjust values for inflation. I may be missing something, but all I was able to find was this discussion from 2014, where it was decided not to add inflation-adjusted values to infoboxes, with the reason cited being not making the already large infobox more cluttered.

Additionally, you asked ‘why 2023’ – I did not choose 2023 as the comparison value, it’s all automatically handled by Template:Inflation. 2023 is just the most recent year which that template’s dataset has, so that is what will be displayed until a more up-to-date value is added to the template. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply