Talk:Tornado (ProSlide ride)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tornado (ProSlide ride) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Amusement Parks Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Redirect[edit]

There is no indication that this product is independently notable. It's a water slide used in a number of parks, allegedly--but the only source verifying anything is a manufacturer's website. Please add references to reliable sources that verify the facts and help establish notability, or I will revert this again, or redirect it to ProSlide Technology. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added references and notability.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. But I removed the list of installed slides: there is no reason to assume that this is notable, and it certainly isn't independently verified. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand why you removed the list. Every amusement ride article has a list of installations. I don't know if your familiar with amusement parks and their articles but all amusement rides have a list of installations on the page, it's a standard. I can add a source for each location but it would take a while and in other articles, each location is not referenced. The list of installations on the ProSlide is good enough in my opinion. I also don't understand how a list of installations isn't notable. It's notable because it lists where the ride exists which is pretty important.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that be notable? For that reason? Especially if it's not supported by independent, reliable sources? I may not know amusements parks (well, I do), but I know a bit about Wikipedia. Would you want to list every single guitar player who plays a Fender Stratocaster in that article? This may be important to a Fender Stratocaster fan (though I doubt it), but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Articles should be articles, not lists. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had a problem with lists in amusement ride articles. There's always been lists because where the ride is located is important. Pick almost any amusement ride article and you'll find a list of installations. I'm not saying every one has one, especially the less popular rides but the most popular rides do have a list of installations.--Astros4477 (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw Wildwater Kingdom (Aurora, Ohio) which has an entire table--and it's not a very good article. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some to name a few, Bolliger & Mabillard, Screamin' Swing, Frisbee (ride), River rafting ride. I know Bolliger & Mabillard is a company but that's a good example of a table of rides. There's also List of Intamin rides which is all about the locations. Also, Wildwater Kingdom is an amusement park (water park). Look at any amusement park article, you'll deffently see a table in those because the rides are what the article is all about.--Astros4477 (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's not correct. The rides are NOT what the article is about: the article should be about the park, the company that runs it, its history, all that. The rides may be part of that but they don't have to be. You are confusing encyclopedic articles with tourist guides. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think one could include a list of installations of ProSlide Tornadoes provided each are reliably sourced. Also, the sources included in the article are not enough to demonstrate notability at this time. Some more newspaper publications wouldn't go astray. Themeparkgc Talk 01:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would a link to the parks website with the ride listed be reliable? I don't quite understand why it's not ok in this article but it is in every other amusement ride article. I don't agree about the statement about amusement parks. Take out all the rides and coasters at Cedar Point, what do you have? A few restaurants, some games and entertainment theaters. The rides are the history.--Astros4477 (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Themepark said is much more in line with our policies. What other articles have doesn't matter so much, unless they're Good Articles. If you take out the rides (and it was unverified) and you have nothing left, then you had a really poor article to begin with. The rides aren't the history; the history of the rides may be part of the history, but only if verified. But I am just repeating myself. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]