Wikivoyage talk:Theme park Expedition

Swept in from the pub

Theme park Expedition

Main: Wikivoyage:Theme park Expedition.

Hello, people. Hey, I just thought of a new expedition for the English Wikivoyage (I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist yet on en WV): Theme park Expedition (or similar name) maybe? If you have any questions/messages/comments about this new expedition, please reply here below -- it would be greatly appreicated. Thanks, —CURTAINTOAD!— 10:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Don´t we already have articles for all the big ones with accommodations and all? I don't want us to start having articles for every Sea World, Wet'n'Wild, and Six Flags out there. Texugo (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikivoyage:What is an article?#Exceptions, we do make articles for theme parks that are too "far away (too far for a day trip) from any city and would require an overnight stay, or so large and complex that the information about them would overload the city article." But most theme parks don't meet these criteria, so the vast majority of theme parks are going to be incorporated into city articles.

Now, that said, I'm not opposed to the idea of a theme park expedition. So long as care is taken to ensure it follows article conventions, I could see improving the coverage of theme parks. Out of curiosity, why do you feel like theme park coverage is something that Wikivoyage needs to address through an expedition? I'm not trying to be hostile, I'm honestly curious. Sell me on this! :) PerryPlanet (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

We have six articles on Walt Disney World and single articles on Disneyland, Disneyland Paris, Tokyo Disneyland, Cedar Point, Universal Orlando Resort, Universal City (where the only attraction is Universal Studios Hollywood), and Darien Lake. I'm not aware of any other theme park articles, though there may be some that I'm missing. Of the ones listed, the last is an outlier, as Darien Lake is a small regional park, but it's in the middle of nowhere and overnight stays are very common. But if it meets the criteria for an article (I believe it does), there may be other regional attractions that have similar properties and could take articles. But I'd be surprised if it ended up being more than a handful. LtPowers (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree, most theme parks don't merit their own article. I tried creating Kings Island (Ohio) a while ago and realized that there just isn't enough to say to fill an article. Most of what you need to know can be found on the map+brochure they give you when you enter the park. But there are probably a few dozen theme parks around the world that are big enough to draw international travelers, and complex enough to stand alone. Bigpeteb (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The current policy — theme parks generally do not get their own articles, with exceptions — seems correct to me & I'd oppose any attempt to expand the number of theme park articles beyond those exceptions.

That said, such parks are remarkably popular in China. Hong Kong has several (see Hong_Kong#Theme_parks) including a Disney park, which I'm told is swarming with visitors mostly from the mainland, and Shanghai is getting a Disney Resort. With 23 million in the city and about 100 million within an hour's travel (see East China), I'll bet that will be busy.

An expedition might look at improving coverage of those and/or at providing some sort of index (preferably not on the China page, already huge) to existing coverage of things such as the large and busy collection of parks described at Shenzhen#Amusement_parks. Pashley (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Very true -- the expedition doesn't need to involve creating new articles, but simply improving park coverage wherever it best fits our guides. LtPowers (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I would support this expedition, and really any expedition the goal of which is improving our coverage, but only if there is sufficient interest in doing the work beyond the nominator. Otherwise the expedition is about coordination between one person, which doesn't make a ton of sense! --Peter ^Talk 17:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

My issue isn't really with the topic of the expedition, but the specificity. Do we really need an expedition that will deal with less than 10 articles? If that's the case, I'm sure we could create thousands of expeditions for every country, region, itinerary, and attraction listed under Project:Where to stick it. For expeditions with such a small focus, I think they would be better dealt as a subpage in someone's userspace where any interested users could coordinate and discuss. Let's not become Wikipedia with thousands of WikiProjects about every topic imaginable, most of which become inactive and don't fulfil their goals. JamesA ^>talk 00:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Good. —CURTAINTOAD!— 04:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I might create the new expedition soon - if the expedition does not meet the policies/guidelines on EN WV, then an administrator may feel free to delete the expedition. Regards, —CURTAINTOAD!— 04:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

So I am going to Support this. —CURTAINTOAD!— 04:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A word of advice: if you do create the expedition, I do hope to see you contribute to it actively. Making minor grammatical fixes here and there, as you've been doing, is definitely good—but actually adding meaningful content to an article is a whole other story. More than likely, this is a situation where you, as the one who proposed the expedition, will be expected to do most of the work.

Good luck.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I may create later. Curtaintoad (user · talk · contribs) 05:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you wait and see if anyone else signs up for the proposed expedition. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright; let's get creating. Curtaintoad (user · talk · contribs) 10:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The idea of the members list was to see if more than 1 person was interested. Unfortunately, it wasn't demonstrated that more than 1 person was interested so I think the expedition creation was done in haste. I'm opposed to a huge influx of expeditions with very specific focusses; only expeditions that affect dozens of articles should be allowed, or else we're diluting their effectiveness and prominence. JamesA ^>talk 12:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition to what James said, I'm a little annoyed at the hasty creation of this expedition because I don't think we have established a clear rationale and goal for an expedition. The assertion that "Wikivoyage needs more theme park articles" is not necessarily true in my opinion, and in light of current policy, as Pashley has stated above. It has not been demonstrated that there are an expedition's worth of theme parks out there which should get their own articles under current policy. I'm not really sure that our otherwise in-article coverage of the smaller amusement parks is suffering enough to warrant an actual expedition either. Texugo (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and as I alluded to as gently as possible above, a quick look at this user's contribution history shows a complete lack of meaningful contributions in mainspace other than random, and often incorrect, grammatical tweaks, as well as creation of outline articles for destinations that seem to have been selected randomly, are rarely of any special interest to travellers, and are highly unlikely to ever be meaningfully expanded on.

Taking the above in to account as well his problematic history on this wiki and others, my conclusion is that if Curtaintoad even understands the purpose of Wikivoyage and is capable of making meaningful contributions to the project, let alone undertaking an entire expedition singlehandedly (which would be a tall order even for me), he has yet to demonstrate it. I'm tempted to put the VfD tag up on this expedition, but will defer to consensus before nominating it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fair enough, if the expedition does not meet the policies/guidelines, feel free to delete it if you really have to. Thanks. Curtaintoad (user · talk · contribs) 00:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like he'd be taking the project on double-handedly, at least, as Normsdale offered to help. I'm unconvinced we need more articles about theme parks, but more content, even if it ends up being merged, is not bad. I think James is right that this project would have been better placed on Curtaintoad's userspace, but I don't think its placement is a reason to kill it, and in a spirit of tolerance, I'd support letting the project get off the ground and seeing what it produces before we decide whether it is doing more harm than good or vice versa. I think I am going to edit the rationale to say that "Wikivoyage needs more coverage of theme parks," though, rather than "Wikivoyage needs more theme park articles." Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)