Template talk:Infobox roller coaster

Two virtual queues
Is there a way to set it so there can be two virtual queues? For example, Demon has Flash Pass available at Six Flags Great America but Fast Lane is available at California's Great America.--Astros4477 (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've implemented a way of doing it in the article. If there are any further cases I decided to copy the code here for reference:




 * Basically the idea is to exploit the raw attribute of and display the same structure as what the 3 parameters do normally on a new line.  Themeparkgc   Talk  23:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Future years
Can someone please modify the code so that when a coaster is under construction, the Category:Roller coasters introduced in yyyy does not get added? This causes problems when editors create categories for things that might happen in the future. Category:Roller coasters introduced in 2013 was approved for deletion but the template is adding a coaster to that category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Themeparkgc   Talk  22:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Deprecate "extend" parameter in favour of numbered locations?
I propose the deprecation of the "extend" parameter in this infobox in favour of having numbered locations (e.g., etc). The main reason I am proposing this is the dodgy alignment that results when this parameter is used. I can't seem to work a way around this. Some examples are Batman The Escape and Flashback (Six Flags Magic Mountain). At the time of writing 74 pages use this template. Thoughts? Themeparkgc  Talk  06:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * is the idea to switch Infobox roller coaster extend to use yes? in that case, it does seem like we would need a separate field for each embedded extended template, but might work with the current method. Frietjes (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed Infobox roller coaster extend to use yes, does this fix the problem? Frietjes (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome. So simple. Thanks for fixing up the dual infobox stuff as well. Themeparkgc   Talk  23:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * no problem. by the way, do we need the top heading to use italics?  seems odd to have the first location without italics and the subsequent locations in italics. Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They all had italics at one stage. It seems pulled them from part of the infobox a couple of weeks ago.  Themeparkgc   Talk  23:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. I removed the italics from the extended box for consistency. Frietjes (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Auto-linking designer field
I noticed when filling out the "manufacturer" field, this template automatically creates a link to the manufacturer page. But when one fills out the "designer" field, no link is automatically created. Could we also add auto-linking for the "designer" field? Srezz (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would rather go the other way around and remove the autolinking. Frietjes (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The autolinking is only there on the manufacturer field because the raw value is used for categorisation in one of the subcats of Category:Roller coasters by manufacturer. Themeparkgc   Talk  00:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox attraction
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox attraction. Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 16:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment at WikiProject Amusement Parks
A change to the list of available statuses for this infobox is being considered at the following discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks. Please add your thoughts and comments there. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Add altname parameter
Is there any objection to adding an altname parameter to this template? This would bring it in line with Infobox attraction and allow an alternate name to appear in the top ride location (currently, subsequent ride locations allow an alternate name to be specified with ). I've mocked it up in the sandbox. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 18:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC) PAGE''' ]]) 21:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * With no objections, I've gone ahead and added the parameter. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

The manufacturer= field
This is documented as "".

In Mighty Canadian Minebuster, PTC is auto-linked to the DAB page PTC instead of to Philadelphia Toboggan Coasters. Can someone fix this problem please? Narky Blert (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just changed it to Philadelphia Toboggan Coasters. --Elisfkc (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * TY! I never like messing with the internals of complex templates for fear of breaking something. Narky Blert (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I try to avoid it to, which is why I changed it on the article, not the template. --Elisfkc (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Designer parameter
I've been reverting a lot of edits where the person who came up with the concept is listed as the designer. For example, John Wardley is often credited as the "designer" of most of the rides at Alton Towers. Most enthusiasts understand the designer to be the engineer who actually designed the ride layout such as Werner Stengel or Alan Schilke. I'm wondering if we need to include a new parameter to recognize the person, or people, who came up with the concept for a ride or contributed to the design. That would pacify a lot of the editors who insist on placing John Wardley in the designer parameter field. It would also allow us to cite those who had an idea that was eventually turned into a design. We know that Will Koch did not design The Voyage, but he had a lot of input into the layout. He knew what he wanted, where he wanted it and conveyed that information to the Gravity Group who then came up with the actual design. There are a lot of people and park owners out there who had input into ride concepts who are not ride designers. Is it okay to just mention their involvement within the article, or should there be a new parameter field for them?— JlACEer ( talk ) 21:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be completely opposed to the idea, but what would the new field be called? Also while we're at it, we should probably consider removing the "Rider information" fields such as height restriction, single rider, etc., (with the exception of the virtual queue parameter). These aren't really appropriate for Wikipedia on the basis of WP:NOTGUIDE. The video parameters can be axed as well. It's an outdated need that doesn't belong in the infobox. If a legit video exists and needs to be in the article, it can exist as an inline citation and/or external link. I don't think I've ever seen it used anyway. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a contributor mention would be appropriate inline. Though a mention in the infobox would depend on who specifically and how much they contributed towards the project; which may be difficult in some instances because there could be so many people who've been credited towards contributing to one undertaking (being a face concern of overcrowding the infobox to one parameter, though I don't know the extent to how roller coasters are credited on a wide basis). To the removal of parameters would another RFC be in order to do such?  Adog 104  Talk to me 03:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "To the removal of parameters would another RFC be in order to do such?"
 * No, if there are no objections here after a reasonable amount of time has passed, then an RfC isn't needed. They can simply be removed/deprecated. As for the suggestion to call the new field "Contributor", it sounds reasonable, but we should give it some thought. We have to ask ourselves how often this parameter is going to actually get used, and weigh the benefit of having it in the infobox as opposed to just covering it in the article body. In light of the concern that this field could be abused or turned into lengthy lists, I'm on the fence leaning toward oppose. I'm not sure the benefit really outweighs the potential for abuse at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm also thinking we should remove the capacity parameter. Lately, we've been getting a lot of drive-by IP editors throwing numbers in there without providing a reference or even summary notes. I doubt very many of these figures are accurate. Manufacturer's often base the number on the theoretical capacity but in actual operation, the parks never come close to those numbers. Without a reliable source is this parameter really encyclopedic?— JlACEer ( talk ) 14:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The quick answer is definitely no! There shouldn't be any statistics in the infobox that aren't tied to a source referenced at some point in the body. And for the ones that are being cited/tracked only by RCDB, we should think twice before listing them. RCDB should be referenced in every article, so there's already a good chance visitors here are going to land over there. We don't need to repeat less-important statistics that lack significant coverage in reliable sources. I'll continue this discussion in a new section below (so we don't hijack this one). --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Removing inappropriate parameters from the infobox
Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, infoboxes should really only be summarizing "key facts that appear in the article"; it should not be introducing the petty, insignificant ones that aren't mentioned anywhere in the body. See the discussion in the previous section for some earlier commentary.If I had to make a list of ones to remove or deprecate, here's what I'd throw in (from top to bottom in the template description):

! style="width: 300px;" | ! style="width: 300px;" | Most of these are trivial – the kind of stuff you'd find in a park brochure or rider safety guide. Others may be less trivial, but they have no place in the infobox, which should be listing the creme of the crop among stats. The borderline trivial ones can find a home in the article body somewhere in prose. Maybe there's a few more we can remove, or maybe some of these should remain, but it's a start. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * | subsection || | single_rider
 * | capacity || | accessible
 * | gforce || | transfer_accessible
 * | restriction (all forms) || | assistive_listening
 * | trains || | cc
 * | carspertrain || | theme
 * | rowspercar || | video (all forms)
 * | ridersperrow || | capacity
 * }
 * | trains || | cc
 * | carspertrain || | theme
 * | rowspercar || | video (all forms)
 * | ridersperrow || | capacity
 * }
 * | ridersperrow || | capacity
 * }
 * }


 * In my belief, I think that the trains, cpt, rpc, and rpr are useful parameters in the infobox as roller coaster cars come in all shapes and sizes and mentioning its distinct capacity features are useful to readers (depending on the ride, the trains can be subject to diverse coverage based on features/theming). More importantly, theme is key to rides that reside in theme parks (and likewise when not), as such is usually centered around the subject of substantial commentary/mentions and would take on a good part of the rides characteristics. I would concur with the rest listed.  Adog  ( Talk ・ Cont ) 03:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to verify, you're in favor of keeping trains, carspertrain, rowspercar, ridersperrow, and theme? Yes, I would consider those to be among the "less trivial" parameters I hinted at above, but the train parameters do still suffer from the fact that they aren't usually covered in reliable sources outside of RCDB. So by listing them in a prominent position (the infobox), we're elevating the importance of a feature that reliable sources apparently aren't placing any emphasis on. For me, that's still an issue. Coverage in sources should be the ultimate litmus test that tells us if it should appear in the infobox. Some sources do mention the total number of riders that can fit on a train, but they don't generally break it down to rows, cars, or the number of trains.As for theme, I can see why we'd keep that in there. For some roller coasters, it's a crucial characteristic. I'll go ahead and cross that off the list. Also just as a reminder, anything we agree to axe from the infobox can still exist in the article body with an inline citation (assuming it doesn't violate WP:NOTGUIDE). --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I would be okay with this as well. Some of the journals and newspapers I use for reference often include rows, cars per train and number of trains in a sidebar or a printed info box. It's often in a press release also. That would tend to make it somewhat encyclopedic.— JlACEer ( talk ) 13:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Right, just so it's clear, I'm not suggesting the information can't be in the article with proper references. I'm just questioning whether it should be in the infobox designating it as a "key fact". I'll drop the contention for now. We'll be making significant progress either way by removing all the others listed above. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I would agree with your perspective on trains (and yes carspertrain, rowspertrain and ridersperrow as what you said is correct, I was lazy at that moment to type it out), but could we then format that into a new parameter possibly designated for "total riders" by itself or is that still in contention with the key principle and/or sources? I think it's important to have some idea of the trains because it's essentially the other half of the coaster, but I think that involves a second opinion because I don't know if that is good.  Adog  ( Talk ・ Cont ) 19:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

, : Just to circle back around to this... perhaps we leave the train parameters, capacity, and g-force for now and remove everything else? I unarchived the note JlACEer dropped on the WikiProject as well to let others know now's the time to weigh in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds appropriate, and never too late to make decisions! Adog  ( Talk ・ Cont ) 14:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Automatically-generated categories
Please note that per WP:TEMPLATECAT, templates are not allowed to artificially transclude articles into content categories at all -- and even more importantly, it's especially forbidden when the output depends on a variable parameter.

For example, somebody recently changed the status on Nemesis (roller coaster) from "closed" to "under construction" -- but since there's a 1994 start date in the infobox due to the fact that it's existed since 1994 and was just recently closed for renovations, that autogenerated the nonexistent category, which can neither be legitimately created nor left on the page to rot, and had to be stripped by switching the status back to "closed" even though "under construction" is technically more accurate. This kind of thing is precisely why templates are not supposed to artificially transclude content categories onto articles, especially categories that depend on variable parameters like a start date.

So this template has to stop using infobox parameters to transclude categories onto articles -- this isn't even the first time I've seen a "roller coasters planned to open in [YYYY several decades in the past]" category on the redlinked categories list this month, but it absolutely must be the last time I ever see such a thing. Bearcat (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * , good point. I know this has been brought up in the past as well. Can we start by removing the auto-categorization linked to "Under construction"? This is a temporary stage for most coasters, so the benefit of any auto-categorization during this time period is minimal at best. We can also look at removing other auto-categorization, but I think this is a good start that would generate the least amount of pushback. I'll drop a note at the WikiProject as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * And it hasn't stopped, as I'm still seeing "Roller coasters planned to open in [Past Year]" categories showing up at Special:WantedCategories on a regular basis, as well as nonexistent things like because somebody has added a "type = Spinning Dark ride" to the infobox even though the infobox explicitly states that type= only cares about whether the roller coaster is made of steel or wood.
 * Again, this needs to stop, and since I've already asked for this before (which I had forgotten) without any action being taken to resolve it, I'm going to have to escalate this to another venue to make it stop. Bearcat (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes to the sandbox. Before implementing them, I think that someone, or some bot, will need to go through categories like and manually assign the categories to the articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * (At the time, "changes to the sandbox" referred to this). Removing all that autocategorization seems drastic. I suggest to allow fixed names like Category:Steel roller coasters, and use  code or Category ifexist on variable category names. Some categories are added by calling Infobox attraction/status. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We have a rule explicitly forbidding templates from autocategorizing articles in content categories at all — it's permitted only for the use of maintenance tracking categories on maintenance templates, and not at all in infoboxes. So it doesn't matter if it's "drastic" or not, because it's simply against the rules. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Maintenance and tracking categories are generally allowed in templates. I have left that code in place. I believe that I have removed only the content-category-related code, which clearly goes against WP:TEMPLATECAT. As for "drastic", it appears that this template is used in only about 900 articles, so it shouldn't be that big of a change. One person's drastic change is another person's "oops, this got a little out of hand due to a good-faith mistake, and we might as well bite the bullet and fix it". – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:TEMPLATECAT only says "it is recommended that articles not be placed in ordinary content categories using templates in this way". We could add a  option per WP:NOCAT so it's always possible to avoid unwanted categories with a standardized parameter. Many appropriate categories like Category:Hypercoasters / Category:Gigacoasters / Category:Stratacoasters will probably not be added in the future if it isn't done automatically, from a height parameter for those. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added some code to this template to test for the existence of categories when type2 or type3 is used. That should limit the redlinked categories. Infobox attraction/status needs similar work, but its category creation is more extensive and it is used in about 1,700 articles, only half of which are for roller coasters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added category testing to Infobox attraction/status/sandbox and tested it in one or two roller coaster articles. It appears to work fine, declining to add categories like, but it needs more testing. You can test it with Infobox roller coaster/sandbox. It should be tested with the other attraction infobox sandboxes as well, to see if I broke anything. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work. I have posted a notification to Template talk:Infobox attraction. I do think this solution is better than to also remove existing categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Isn't there a bot that could handle any recategorization that had to happen here, instead of requiring somebody to do a manual AWB run on it? I mean, I've already had somebody try to gaslight me that it was my fault for not taking on a 900-article AWB run myself, and that I was somehow not allowed to even ask for help with this if I wasn't willing to take on a 900-article AWB run myself — and yet I know damn well that there are bots that could do it, because we have bots take on batch recategorization jobs all the time. Or, alternatively, just go with the #ifexist suggestion above so that redlinked categories get kiboshed while bluelinked ones get left alone. After all, while templates really shouldn't be artificially generating categories based on variable entry fields at all, I don't have any strong reason to get my knickers in a knot if it generates categories that exist and aren't causing major problems — the redlinks are the ones that actually have to be prevented here. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)