Talk:Six Flags Over Texas

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Texas Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance). Dallas-Fort Worth (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth articles Amusement Parks: Six Flags 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. This article is supported by Six Flags task force (assessed as Top-importance).

	Six Flags Over Texas is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 28, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 26, 2004 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Batman: The Ride The Batman: The Ride link can either be Batman: The Ride (SFOT) or Batman: The Ride. Batman: The Ride (SFoT) is specific to Six Flags over Texas, however, it does not provide near as much information as the Batman: The Ride link. The Batman: The Ride link mentions the Six Flags over Texas version anyways.

I just rehauled the entire page, any comments/suggestions? Feel free to edit it if you happen to find any glaring errors... BrandonR 02:50, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

The Interesting Facts section contains only one, that the park got its name from, as the editor believes, six flags that flew over the Alamo. I'm going to remove it because it's incorrect. The real source of the name is from Spain, France, Mexico, Republic of Texas, Confederacy, and USA, the six flags that have flown over Texas. This is earlier in the article.

njkg

I removed the mention of the Six Flags Over Texas Fund Ltd including some of the heirs of Angus Wynne. That statement has been on this wiki page for some time but no citation has ever been found. Wynne was forced out of Six Flags by Penn Central, it seems very unlikely that any of his sons or heirs would invest in the fund that now owns that park. Shannon Wynne's investments in Arlington are well publicized — mostly in area restaurants — but involvement with any type of ownership in Six Flags has never been discussed. The only association with Six Flags that is mentioned is that he is the son of the founder.—JlACEer (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page for link ten can longer be found. Someone should remove it, but because of the way mobile works, I can’t get it without destroying the entire “references” page. Zackthemaf666 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Refs do not have to be online. We don't remove refs just because they no longer work. We still need them to show where the information came from, and often we can recover the link from an archive. In this case https://www.sixflags.com/overtexas/attractions/ride-list no longer lists Tony Hawk's Big Spin as a ride so I don't know if we even need to bother mentioning this ride. Meters (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• HQS.jpg
• SFOT Batman 3 Edit.jpg
• SFOT Big Spin 11 Edit.jpg
• SFOT Coyote 8 Edit.jpg
• SFOT Giant 27 Edit.jpg
• SFOT Joker 13 Edit.jpg
• SFOT Mine 2 Edit.jpg
• SFOT Mini 7 Edit.jpg
• SFOT Mr. Freeze 13 Edit.jpg
• SFOT Mtn. 1 Edit.jpg
• SFOT Scream 2 Edit.jpg
• SFOT Shockwave 5 Edit.jpg
• SFOT Titan 10 Edit.jpg
• SFOT Vibora 1 Edit.jpg
• Superman Tower of Power (SFOT).jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow WikiProject Amusement Parks member Jpp858:

I noticed your recent removal of the table, which a lot of hard work went into. I can surely resurrect it at List of Six Flags Over Texas attractions – that's not an issue – but I know there have been discussions in the past where editors felt keeping a roller coaster chart in the main article was helpful and preferred, since one of the main draws of a major theme park is its coasters. The rest of the rides can be forked over into a secondary article, which can even relist coasters a second time with lengthier descriptions. In the main article, we would keep the coaster description short and concise. One chart containing 10-15 rows (give or take a few) is not consuming that much space. Do you feel strongly about it? If so, perhaps we need to bring in additional opinions. Curious to hear your thoughts. Thanks in advance! --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd also point out that at Six Flags AstroWorld, which has been worked on a lot recently by multiple editors, the decision was made to keep all rides in the main article, but to collapse the non-coaster list. That article is going to be peer-reviewed soon and hopefully promoted to GA in the near future. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the work that was made for the table and it sucks when it gets removed. I should’ve noticed it when it was added in June, as I would’ve done the same back then. I’m happy to learning and discussing others views and opinions on the matter. I did the same thing to the Six Flags Fiesta Texas page a year or two ago. I created the Fiesta Texas page similar to Disneyland, and Disney's Hollywood Studios pages. The Fiesta and Over Texas pages were messy just like this Six Flags St. Louis page and many others just like it. Even though it’s just my opinion I feel like it reads better as is than having it cluttered with boxes.

Also I believe, that the page should be about “the park”, not where it list the rides, as there is another page for that. Like I said I’m open to discussion.--Jpp858 (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jpp858, pinging you again since I moved the discussion. Meant to post it here originally...

Appreciate your feedback. We definitely agree on one thing: reducing clutter. I think all non-coaster ride charts at major theme park articles should be moved to list articles to improve readability. Seems we're both on the same page in that regard. Then we can leave it up to local talk page consensus to decide whether or not a compact coaster chart remains in the main article. Some conditions that might factor into that decision could include the number of roller coasters, the ease of describing them in prose only, and article length, which according to WP:AS#Readability issues should stay under 50,000 words (or 50KB in size). Each article may have different needs. Articles that get promoted to WP:GA and WP:FA status could serve as good references for the way they handled the situation, especially when new discussions hit a wall and lack consensus.

For this article, I'm leaning toward restoring the roller coaster chart for two reasons:

1. With the chart came 23 new references added to the article. Nuking the chart leaves a big hole. What should happen instead, even if consensus prefers chart removal, is to take the most relevant coasters from that list and summarize in prose. When forking content over to a subarticle, a "brief summary" of the forked content should take its place at the main article per WP:SPINOFF.
2. The article size here is only 1424 words, nowhere near the 50,000 guideline limit. Clutter from a 13-item chart shouldn't be a primary concern here, especially if we compact the description column. The lengthier descriptions as they existed before can be moved to the list article, which helps avoid WP:UNDUE concerns.

I can ping active WikiProject editors, if needed, to weigh in and help decide the chart's ultimate fate. I'm not strongly opposed to its removal, but at the very least, some form of that chart should remain here. If not in a compacted chart, then as a summary moved to prose format. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I prefer to have the content all on one page rather than being forced to locate a link that leads to a separate list of rides. That's how it was done for the Cedar Point article, which, as far as I know, is the only amusement park page to have received WP:GA status. Sure, it's long and requires lots of scrolling but that's what scroll wheels are for. Ironically, the WP:GA decision-makers don't seem to like lists and tables as that seems to be the primary reason for not promoting Kings Island. I guess it comes down to what the ultimate goal is here: A page that contains all of the information in one easy-to-find format that will appeal to the typical amusement-park page reader or a page that will appease the WP:GA gods?—JlACEer (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Kingdom is another one, and it has all rides listed. Kings Island is on my radar to get promoted to GA in the near future and then eventually FA. A discussion a long time ago at Talk:Kings Island/Archive 1#Listing park attractions suggested converting the charts to prose (writing about only notable rides), relying on the attractions list page to list all rides. Not a strong consensus there of course, but it was something I started to do and need to finish. I think short articles absolutely need to have this done, because WP:UNDUE comes into play if you don't. Insignificant rides taking up a large chunk of an article will have issues passing GA and definitely FA, but it isn't an issue for a list which is dedicated to that subject. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Add the following chart to the article, a compact form of the previous chart that was recently removed.

Points taken from the discussion above:

• Arguments for retaining: Improves the ability to quickly locate and identify roller coasters within the article, which would otherwise be scattered in prose. Doesn't have to be as descriptive as the ride charts in List of Six Flags Over Texas attractions, so its footprint can be minimal. Having a compact chart doesn't force readers to jump to the list article for basic information The current article is on the small side at only 1420-ish words, so clutter shouldn't be a major concern at this stage.
• Arguments for prose only: There is already a dedicated list article where all rides including coasters can be listed. Avoiding the chart here reduces clutter and unnecessary duplication between articles.

The goal is to gather feedback from WikiProject members first before considering an RfC (which may end up happening if there is no consensus). I have pinged the project's active editors in this edit. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please choose between "Chart and prose" or "Prose only" in your response.

• Chart and prose – There are good arguments on both sides, but I believe roller coasters are an integral part of amusement park articles, hence the reason parks heavily invest in their production and promotion. They are undoubtedly the biggest draw for non-Disney, non-Universal parks. It benefits the reader to have a short summary in the article contained in an easy-to-spot chart. Only having them in prose, while an acceptable alternative, makes it harder on the reader. They are forced to locate the hatnote link, jump to the list article, and hunt for the coaster chart there. There's nothing wrong with duplicating some of the list article content here; that qualifies as a "brief summary" per WP:SPINOFF, and it's the same concept applied in many music and film articles, where a portion of the filmography or discography still resides in a chart within main article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Chart and prose – I was pinged here so I'll give my two cents. Personally I would go with the compact table and I would also move the "Description" column of each coaster to prose. I disagree with removing that table entirely as, like mentioned above, the table is easier to navigate. But the "Description" column is quite unwieldy in the table as well, and you can still repeat the details of the table in the prose. Epicgenius (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's an excellent point. Even if the new chart gets added, we should still take the descriptions from the old chart and summarize them in prose as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Chart and prose – DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Chart and prose – This is something that I feel would be case dependant, in which sometimes many of these stats are missing or unknown about certain coasters. It does work for SFOT since all statistical information is known about a majority of the coasters, and I would be for such an implementation here. Bigtime Boy (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Chart and prose – Everything should be in one article. I dislike having to locate links to sub-articles such as ride and coaster listings. If not charts for all the rides, then at the very least restore the chart for the coasters. Those are typically the primary draw at amusement parks.—JlACEer (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked over the other suggestions and other ways to go at it. I believe that the condense table that is proposed is good, and does it’s purpose to the reader as I to believe that is what people are mainly on the page for as well. It takes out the notes section that is usually more words and unsourced or usually blank. Leave the notes to the specific ride to their specific article, which most of the coasters here have. I see that a table is currently on the List of Six Flags Over Texas attractions, if that table is condensed to this new table and added to the main article, then that table is not needed. It could just be listed like every other ride at the park. I agree to a Chart and prose. On the main article, it could have a section with “Attractions”, with a subsection of the Roller Coasters of the park that includes the condense table. A see also link can be listed in the attraction section to the list page of all the rides, instead of listing all the rides on one page, (which is something I’m not in favor of). --Jpp858 (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Chart and prose – I was also pinged Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks. There is value in having everything in one place in a table, and although the compact version looks cleaner and more concise, I'm sure the readers who prefer a brief read will appreciate the chart prose as a quick point of reference, while those who are more intrigued can use the prose as a starting point to read further. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Chart and prose - I feel having the table included is helpful for readers. The prose also serves as a jumping off point for those who care to read more deeply on the subject. I see no harm in having both. Many articles include smaller tables, even though an entire separate list article exists (i.e. for discographies). -Euphoria42 (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. --Jpp858 (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]