Talk:Oblivion (roller coaster)

Fantasy Land
Suggest moving the stuff about fantasy land into Alton Towers, with a bit of condensing? camelworks 16:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradict
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)

Drop angle contention
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)

T-Park review source
, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * I can tell from their contact page 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Hyperia.
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)