This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Viper (Six Flags AstroWorld) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This basically gtfdgdfdga disambiguation page, all but two of these rides have their own articles and it wouldn't be hard to add the others. I'd like to propose that this page be redirected to the main Viper disambiguation page where we can add a separate section listing the rides. Just seems to me that there is very little in common between most of these rides apart from their name. What does everyone think? Seaserpent85 12:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Leijurv: In regard to this edit, there are a few issues. First, the Six Flags St. Louis article does say that Batman: The Ride replaced Viper. However, it doesn't clarify that it sits on the same site as Viper, nor is there a reliable source cited for any of that. In the Batman: The Ride article, it doesn't mention this either. We need to be careful about making assumptions without the backing of reliable sources, which is a big reason why these coordinates were missing to begin with. A larger discussion on tracking old coordinate locations that can't currently be verified may need to be talked about at a higher level in another venue. I'm beginning to think they place a strain on our Verifiability policy, possibly making them unencyclopedic in nature. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 21:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of how coordinates are obtained, consider the precision specified in a Wikipedia article. Reliable secondary sources exist for some locations. Without a reliable source, the larger the object being mapped, the less precise the coordinates need to be.This seems to indicate that in the absence of a reliable secondary source on location, we can turn to a primary source. And WP:OGC makes no mention (that I noticed) of such verifiability. It even suggests:
From other sources Using a GPS receiver with a clear view of the skyfor crying out loud. WP:OR?? Honestly, I think of the coordinates the same way I think of images on articles: I don't really expect a citation proving that that coordinate or that image truly describes what the article is about, since it's like trivially verifiable. My personal view is that as long as the precision of the coordinates isn't misleading (I admit, I bungled that in this case), it is reasonable to give a best estimate. But only within reason. For example, given an article on a town in California that I can't locate, I would never paste in the coordinates of California. But, given something like a particular attraction within an area of reasonably small size, I might use the overall coordinate. For example, for an article on a roller coaster on a pier, it's preferable to give the location of the pier than none at all, since we know that it will be accurate to within the degree represented by the precision of the coordinate. Another example: Recoil_(Wonderla_Hyderabad) previously was at the World Expo Park, which states
It was positioned on the corner of Melbourne and Glenelg Streets in South Brisbane, the current site of the Brisbane Convention & Exhibition Centre. This isn't a coordinate. Obviously, it's preferable to give a numeric coordinate instead of a cross street, so instead of taking that definition of location, I just took the coordinate from that convention centre's article. Other times, I find the coaster on Google Maps myself, sometimes referring to a park map that I find online. I really have no idea how to cite these and given that I haven't (to my knowledge) seen any cited coordinates at all ever... it seems reasonable to me to approximate, especially with a HTML comment explaining what happened. Leijurv ( talk) 22:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, looks like we're settling on the following:
Look good, sound reasonable? -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 18:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Viper (Six Flags AstroWorld) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This basically gtfdgdfdga disambiguation page, all but two of these rides have their own articles and it wouldn't be hard to add the others. I'd like to propose that this page be redirected to the main Viper disambiguation page where we can add a separate section listing the rides. Just seems to me that there is very little in common between most of these rides apart from their name. What does everyone think? Seaserpent85 12:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Leijurv: In regard to this edit, there are a few issues. First, the Six Flags St. Louis article does say that Batman: The Ride replaced Viper. However, it doesn't clarify that it sits on the same site as Viper, nor is there a reliable source cited for any of that. In the Batman: The Ride article, it doesn't mention this either. We need to be careful about making assumptions without the backing of reliable sources, which is a big reason why these coordinates were missing to begin with. A larger discussion on tracking old coordinate locations that can't currently be verified may need to be talked about at a higher level in another venue. I'm beginning to think they place a strain on our Verifiability policy, possibly making them unencyclopedic in nature. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 21:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of how coordinates are obtained, consider the precision specified in a Wikipedia article. Reliable secondary sources exist for some locations. Without a reliable source, the larger the object being mapped, the less precise the coordinates need to be.This seems to indicate that in the absence of a reliable secondary source on location, we can turn to a primary source. And WP:OGC makes no mention (that I noticed) of such verifiability. It even suggests:
From other sources Using a GPS receiver with a clear view of the skyfor crying out loud. WP:OR?? Honestly, I think of the coordinates the same way I think of images on articles: I don't really expect a citation proving that that coordinate or that image truly describes what the article is about, since it's like trivially verifiable. My personal view is that as long as the precision of the coordinates isn't misleading (I admit, I bungled that in this case), it is reasonable to give a best estimate. But only within reason. For example, given an article on a town in California that I can't locate, I would never paste in the coordinates of California. But, given something like a particular attraction within an area of reasonably small size, I might use the overall coordinate. For example, for an article on a roller coaster on a pier, it's preferable to give the location of the pier than none at all, since we know that it will be accurate to within the degree represented by the precision of the coordinate. Another example: Recoil_(Wonderla_Hyderabad) previously was at the World Expo Park, which states
It was positioned on the corner of Melbourne and Glenelg Streets in South Brisbane, the current site of the Brisbane Convention & Exhibition Centre. This isn't a coordinate. Obviously, it's preferable to give a numeric coordinate instead of a cross street, so instead of taking that definition of location, I just took the coordinate from that convention centre's article. Other times, I find the coaster on Google Maps myself, sometimes referring to a park map that I find online. I really have no idea how to cite these and given that I haven't (to my knowledge) seen any cited coordinates at all ever... it seems reasonable to me to approximate, especially with a HTML comment explaining what happened. Leijurv ( talk) 22:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, looks like we're settling on the following:
Look good, sound reasonable? -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 18:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)