User talk:Mullins.170

July 2019

Hello, I'm GoneIn60. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kings Island, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GoneIn60 (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Kings Island rides

Appreciate the effort updating these charts, but I thought I should let you know it was decided some time ago to merge these charts into a different article, List of Kings Island attractions. The reason is to reduce clutter at the main KI article (keeping that article focused mainly on prose) and avoid unnecessary duplication between the two. That is a "featured list" article by the way, so care needs to be taken when the info is moved over, which is also why that hasn't been done yet. Just thought I'd give you a heads up, because it's been on my to-do list for a long time. With any luck, I may actually start the merge in the next few weeks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Is the end goal to include opening years in the List of Kings Island attractions? I see they do not currently include that but I hope the plan is to ultimately include them. (Also I apologize if I'm not correctly formatting or responding to messages; it's a learning experience) --Mullins.170 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is some wiggle room for adding a few columns, but if space doesn't permit columns for dates, then we can always throw them into the description. Also, since this is a featured list, in order to keep that status, we need to make sure all the sources we have are rock solid. Fan sites, blogs, personal webpages, etc., are source types to avoid in general, but since they sometimes include helpful information such as photographs or maps, they can still be used sparingly when they're being complemented by more reputable sources that also verify the same claims. I don't have a "newspapers.com" subcription, so I'm glad you're able to find sources I don't currently have access to. Thanks for that! --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Skycoaster

I deleted the unsourced content at Skycoaster. A lot of it had been added by you, however, the article had been tagged since 2012. I did note that you had in fact added two sources, which I had to delete. It would have been impossible to pick through the unsourced content just to retain those two edits. Please feel free to add them back to the article. Thanks for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

List of former Kings Island attractions

While some of the recent cleanup has been useful, you need to be more careful about edits like this one and this one. Both introduce unsourced claims. The Flight Commander edit you made makes a new claim on the # of pods, and then you mention the ride was relocated to Flamingo Land. For Der Spinnen Keggers, you claim "18 barrels", "slight angle", and that "the tops were removed...between 1981 and 1983". You shouldn't be doing that without adding a source to go with each claim. Please take some time to sweep back through the other changes you've recently made and check that it's all sourced before you move on to other rides. Otherwise, I'm going to have to revert the article back to a former revision before you started editing it. I'd hate to lose the changes that were actually helpful, so that's a last resort. Thanks in advance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand wanting a source on things like the ride being relocated to another park, but looking at any picture or video of the rides show the number of vehicles or that the whole platform would tilt. Those are basic characteristics of those rides. I can source pictures/videos, but definitely seems to be splitting hairs there. Also seems absurd to suggest that the solution is reverting edits, especially when there are dozens of unsourced and outright false claims in that article that have literally been sitting there for years. --Mullins.170 (talk) 12:57, 01 November 2020 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind about Wikipedia is that it's not a repository of trivial information (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Being true or even useful does not necessarily mean it deserves coverage in an encyclopedia. One way we gauge the importance of a detail is by looking in reliable sources. If they're talking about it, then we probably should be to. Seeing something in a picture, by the way, isn't the same as reading about it in text. If you want to dive into that further, let me know.

So having said all that, the "tilting" characteristic would likely be covered in an in-depth article about the ride, but the number of vehicles? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not going to be a stickler about that right now, because you make a good point that the list article has a lot more serious issues to fix first. However, for rides that no longer exist, I think any specification or detail you want to include needs an inline citation. As long as you can provide one for each claim, feel free to re-add whatever details you think are important. Then whenever I get time to circle back around and check everything, we can continue this discussion if necessary. In the meantime, I won't hesitate to revert edits that add to the article's problems.

By the way in case it helps, WP:REFNAME shows you how to easily reuse the same source for multiple inline citations (in case you didn't already know). --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother to try updating and correcting this page anymore; you obviously have specific types of sources and ways that you want to do it, and I don't think it's worth my time if you're going to just revert my corrections. I agree that a newspaper article or published work is a preferred source when possible, but those don't usually exist for some of the finer details in Kings Island history. For example, no newspaper article will acknowledge that Rotor moved within the Oktoberfest area in 1974... but photos and park maps show its relocation, and the fact it was to accommodate Lion Country Safari is clear when you see the midway crossing through the former ride location. The whole page is filled with false information and I'd like to help make it more accurate, but it seems like a lost cause. --Mullins.170 (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I get it, and thanks for your contributions so far. Hopefully you don't decide to step away. Like I said, I'm not going to sweep through that article for quite some time, so nothing you add will get removed by me right away as long as it has an inline citation. We can worry about the sources later. There's only one exception. Verifying through a picture or map is fine for some things if you're just trying to show that a ride was located in a particular spot or was available during a particular season. That's not an issue. However, it cannot be used to verify what year a specific change occurred (such as a move or demolition). "When" details really need better sources. Those kinds of details need a source where an author is specifically talking about it and calling that change out.

As I mentioned before, if reliable secondary sources aren't talking about it, then most likely we shouldn't be either. A map or picture is simply a primary source, not secondary. Primary sources give us unnecessary details all the time that may seem important for a while or to a small number of eagle-eyed researchers, but 100 years later, they become very trivial and fail to enhance the reader's understanding of the article's overall subject. Imagine making a documentary of Jack Nicklaus. You can't include everything, like his favorite color, food, high-school girlfriend, etc., that would bog the documentary down with inessential details. That's kind of like what we're doing here on Wikipedia: weeding out the trivial and focusing on the essential. I truly hope that helps and doesn't discourage you from editing. There's a lot wrong with that list, and anything you can do in the meantime (even if limited) is appreciated. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)