Talk:Six Flags AstroWorld/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lead section

The lead section of this article is too lengthy and detailed. Please summarize into 2–3 paragraphs. —RJN 22:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Article title

I propose moving the article to either AstroWorld or Six Flags AstroWorld (with the "W" in "World" uppercase, as this is how the official site and logos often display the name of the park). Currently, the "W" is lowercase. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. The MoS discourages stylized names for articles which would include AstroWorld. So that one would need a new discussion if you want to change it in the existing title and also would need broader support. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Six Flags Astroworld → AstroWorld

– I'm requesting this article be moved to AstroWorld. Six Flags is just a prefix they place on their parks and is not the official name of the park. Also this article has a lower case w, which should be a capital W. --Astros4477 (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose moving to AstroWorld — the park's name when it closed was Six Flags Astroworld and I feel it should be left that way. I hold a neutral position about changing the W. Themeparkgc  Talk  05:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about removing the Six Flags frefix, wanted to see what other people said. But i defiantly think the W should be capitalized because everything referred to it as that and from above speculation, other people agree. We'll see what other people comment. --Astros4477 (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (new)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Six Flags Astroworld → Six Flags AstroWorld – Park name always had a capital "W" in the middle. The park's official name according to the 2004 Six Flags Annual Financial Report to shareholders (before closure of the park) was Six Flags AstroWorld (with a capital "W"). It was typed this way throughout the report. It was also listed as Six Flags AstroWorld in the 2005 Annual Report (after the park closed). I didn't see the discussion in February or I would have chimed in then.JlACEer (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support — I support this, I requested it in February so I agree. A few people have commented on it before so I feel the "w" should deffently be capitalized.--Astros4477 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support; CamelCase is allowed under our MOS:TM guidelines. Powers ^T 15:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support — I would support removal of Six Flags altogether and return it to the original name of AstroWorld. Postoak (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Six Flags AstroWorld/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Add History cat Postoak 05:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 06:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Astroworld (album) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary detail

This article has lots of overly detailed (and often unsourced) text about specific rides, even for rides with standalone Wikipedia entries. Do any editors care to help reduce redundancies by moving details to rides' respective articles and summarizing in the parent article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

XLR-8

The XLR-8 section is particularly detailed. This should be a summary of XLR-8. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Since I removed a ton of unsourced text moments ago, I'd say unnecessary detail is not an issue currently. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced content

This article has a significant amount of unsourced content. I've added a tag to the top of the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed unsourced and poorly sourced text. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Park name

Should the park name revert back to the original name of "AstroWorld" now that Six Flags sold the property (where the demolished park once stood) and no longer owns it? Thanks, Postoak 20:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I vote leave it be, after all it was a Six Flags park for most of the span of ownership. Though the common name in Houston was just "Astroworld," nobody really mentioned the Six Flags part. Each side has a valid reasoning. Feedloadr 05:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for neglecting to sign my previous comments. Now that the park no longer exists, I feel that (for the purposes of this article) the Six Flags Corporation should not be mentioned until the year 1975 within the History section. I would like to see this article begin with more information about the park prior to ownership by Six Flags Corp. It would be very nice to have the title of the article changed to simply "AstroWorld" and have "Six Flags AstroWorld" as a redirect. Jay77tx 21:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject of names, it's AstroWorld -- NOT Astroworld! Jay77tx 22:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Demolition

Please update the demolition section as more info becomes available.

I don't understand the need to include this section. Will every rideand attraction be listed as it is being removed? Since this is an ongoing process, will the list of demolished attractions be updatedfrequently? When everything is gone, will this list be retained or this entire section removed? Thanks Postoak 02:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It won't include every ride as it is removed. It'll just keep track and keep people informed.

Now that everything has been done, this section might work as some sort of timeline. I can do some research before making any changes. Jay77tx 12:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned that "Looping Starship" has been relocated to "Clute, Texas" when in the Six Flags Over Texas entry, the ride is claimed to have been moved there. Either thos article or the Six Flags Over Texas article is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.149.86 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that some of the theming went to Clute and the ride went to SFOT. [1], [2] Postoak (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

Astroworld is gone. It is just memory. For me, a very pleasant memory. The Houston Press article was written years ago. What is the purpose of adding the criticism section now? Postoak 23:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sky Screamer

The ride's operating manual referred to the vehicles as gondolas, not cars. Sky Screamer had a lift chain, not a cable. Two chain dogs were located at opposite ends of the lift chain. The typical clink clank of the chain lift anti-rollbacks was not present in this ride design. Jay77tx 15:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dubious" tag

Resolved

There's a "dubious" tag after the text, "Six Flags AstroWorld originated the "Fright Nights" special event for the Halloween season in 1986, designed to help drive attendance during the otherwise light fall season." Should this text just be removed? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 11:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I removed it and replaced it with two other sources. Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Adog, Thank you! Marking this section as resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate ref info/linking

Resolved

@Adog: In the References section, are you opposed to me unlinking all but the first appearances of Houston Chronicle, and removing all but the first mentions of Hearst Communications? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That is ok with me, appreciate the ask. Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Adog,  Done I think I've removed all duplicate linking and redundant publishers across all formatted references. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Crop logo?

Resolved

Anyone able to crop the logo in the infobox so there's less surrounding white space? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Jonesey95! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

TV special

• https://www.timesunion.com/life/article/ABC-made-a-1968-holiday-special-about-Astroworld-5104248.php

---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I've made this addition to the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Roller coasters table

Italics, caps?

Resolved

In the roller coasters table, the coaster names and locations are italicized. Why? Should we remove italics?

Also, caps. Why are all words in phrases like "Wooden Roller Coaster" capitalized? Looks odd. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@JlACEer: Putting this on your radar since you restored the table. ---Another Believer _(Talk)

I've attempted to address the caps issue. The use of italics still needs to be addressed. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Remove the italics, some editors used to italicize coasters but most have gotten away from that.—JlACEer (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The only counter I have for this is possibly to draw emphasis that the roller coaster's in question are defunct. Though I have no personal input as to what direction you all want to take. Adog (Talk・Cont) 00:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The italics were unnecessary and unjustified. I've removed them. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

GoneIn60, Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the table looks great! My concerns have been addressed. I am marking this subsection as resolved, but of course editors are still welcome to add other comments. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Citations needed

I'm currently reviewing the sources used in the roller coasters table and adding citation needed tags when the source does not confirm specific details. Help addressing these would be appreciated. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

This diff shows the changes I made to the table restored by User:JlACEer. I added quite a few citation needed tags, and fixed some inaccurate information. I will be removing unsourced text soon, so please help fix if you want to keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to source every single piece of information. The location within the park doesn't need a "citation needed tag" for every single entry. I'll just wait until you're done jacking with this page and have moved on to something else, then I'll go back and fix it.—JlACEer (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

JlACEer, Um, yes, the information needs to be sourced. I'm hoping other editors will weigh in here as well, please. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

And, for the record, I'm not 'jacking with this page'. I'd like to see this promoted to Good article status, actually. Before doing so, all details need to be sourced or I will remove. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Serpent

Resolved

Thank you for adding citations. I believe the only remaining citation needed tag is re: Serpent, which I added because the database does NOT confirm train relocation to Arlington. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Gone ahead and removed it, couldn't find any hits while researching. Otherwise reinstate if information is found. Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Adog, Perfect, thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Location column

Resolved

I believe all but one of the cells in the Location column require citations. I propose removing this column unless sourcing can be added immediately. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Most park pages do not include the themed land (if any) as a location for the coaster. Delete it.—JlACEer (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I added a primary source for locations, though it is the official park brochure. It may suffice if there isn't any other option for sources. Adog (Talk・Cont) 00:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

A park map identifying the sections would also work. There are lots of images of old AstroWorld maps to be found.—JlACEer (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources such as maps, images, and brochures should suffice. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a citation. I am satisfied and will mark this subsection as resolved. Additional comments are still welcome, of course. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Images of coasters

Resolved

Shall we display the images of specific coasters within the table, or keep as thumbnails in the article body? I'm open to adding to the table, especially if we remove the Location column per above. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Gone ahead and done that, personally it looks better to me, but I'd like to hear what y'all think. ;) Adog (Talk・Cont) 00:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks good. I like having the images in the table.—JlACEer (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed! Looks good, thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Swamp Buggy

Resolved

I see Swamp Buggy is the only ride in the current table without a description. I can't find much info, but this source says, "New attractions included Swamp Buggy, which traveled fifty-five feet up and down a swamp tree...", if we want to add a note/description. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I came across one that states "...Swamp Buggy, which will take passengers "55 feet up above the center of a giant swamp tree and then slide dizzily down a spiraled track wrapped around a huge tree."" via Daily News, New York City, NY. May 10, 1970. via Newspapers.com. Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Adog, This is great! Would you like to update the description in the table or should I? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you have what's best in mind for the descriptors so I'll let you handle it. :P Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Adog, Sure, can you share the URL for the newspapers.com link and/or article title for the citation? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

(Newspapers.com) – Clipped and shipped. Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Title: "Summer is Coming – Here's Our Preview" by John Hughes. Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Adog,  Done Hope this works. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

"Removed" vs. "Closed"

Resolved

Currently, the table has a "Removed" column. Should we change this to "Closed"? I ask because I think we should focus on when the ride was operating, not necessarily when the ride was dismantled or relocated. For example, I think I read the Texas Cyclone was actually removed in 2006, but obviously the ride stopped operating in 2005. I see 2006 was recently changed to 2005, so if we're meaning to tell readers when a ride stopped operating, perhaps we should change the column title? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

User:JlACEer changed the column title to Closed. Of course, other comments are welcome here, but I am going to mark this section as resolved for now since my concern has been addressed. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I believe the status I changed involved the amusement park itself being removed (in the infobox), not the roller coaster's that pertain to the box under this threaded subsection. Unless you want to prove to me the empty lot there today has all these attractions still standing but are just "closed". :P Adog (Talk・Cont) 04:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Adog, Gah!, so sorry, my mistake. For the infobox, does 'Defunct' work for you? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: per Template:Infobox amusement park, there isn't an appropriate title for an amusement park being removed. However, based on previous consensus found for Template:Infobox roller coaster, "Removed" is said to be the main category for signifying if a roller coaster is gone. This may warrant a visit to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks page to update the amusement park infobox. In this case, I would support using the phrase "Removed" rather than "Defunct" for consistency and possible future consensus if a discussion is warranted; there is also the fact that "defunct" can imply that something is not operating, but is of existence still where "Removed" makes it clear its not longer existing. Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Adog, Ok, Ill change back to Removed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is the relevant discussion concerning statuses: WT:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3#Status fields in attraction articles.

Technically, this was only discussed for attraction articles and not for park articles, but like Another Believer stated, it might be best to remain consistent and carry this over to amusement park infoboxes as well. I would not be entirely opposed, however, to using "Defunct" instead of "Removed" for park statuses. Sometimes, they transfer ownership and become an entirely different park, so in those cases, the old park would be better classified as defunct. Perhaps stick with removed for now and revisit defunct at a later time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Roller coaster title consistency

Resolved

So far, I've noticed the article uses both Greezed Lightning and Greezed Lightnin', as well as both Dexter Freebish Electric Roller Ride and Dexter Freebish's Electric Roller Ride. What are the best sources for determining the best / most appropriate titles? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

We may as well throw "Batman The Escape" and "Batman: The Escape" into the mix for discussion, too. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

RCDB.com is your most reliable source. Batman The Escape (no colon). Dexter Frebish's Electric Roller Ride (possessive). Greezed Lightnin' with an apostrophe in place of the G.—JlACEer (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

JlACEer, But do you mean "Dexter Freebish" (with 2 E's) per this source, this source, this source, this source, etc? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I've changed one appearance of Lightning to Lightnin', so I believe the text is now consistent. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It is Frebish with one "e" as per the sign, RCDB.com and Wikipedia's page on Dexter_Freebish in which it is noted that the spelling of the band is different. I'm amazed you found so many incorrect sources, but this just further supports my previous statement that TV stations and newspaper articles, particularly The Houston Chronicle, are not reliable sources.—JlACEer (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

JlACEer, Hard to accept the Houston Chronicle is not a reputable source but I definitely see what you mean. I will update spellings throughout the article now. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the Houston Chronicle contributors write from memory and don't bother to do any research or check their sources. And, it's not just the amusement park articles, I have found quite a bit of sloppy reporting from the Chron.—JlACEer (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, with the exception of the appearance of "Batman: The Escape" within a direct quotation, I believe the article is now consistent with Batman The Escape, Dexter Frebish's Electric Roller Ride, and Greezed Lightnin'. I am going to mark this section as resolved. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Map requested

Resolved

I've added the 'map request' tag to the top of this page. I'm not sure if the infobox allows, but I think giving readers a sense of the park's location in Houston would be helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Hello! I'm curious, could you possibly see if adding a map here is possible? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I added Texas as the map; add a more zoomed one of Houston with the # option if you want. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, I tried both Texas#Houston and Houston#Texas, but only see error messages. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Those maps don't exist. I don't see one that applies. See this list for location maps starting with U and this list for H and this list for T. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Bamboo Shoot?

Should there be a Wikipedia article about Bamboo Shoot? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No, log flumes rarely get a separate article unless it is an extremely notable installation such as Disney's Splash Mountain or Cedar Point's notorious Shoot the Rapids.—JlACEer (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

JlACEer, Thanks. I'll try to add a bit of detail about the ride to this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Overhaul

The Astroworld article suffers from a familiar problem of many old articles. The article contains mostly unsourced true, probably true, or possibly true statements. The pull for retaining the article as written is significant. However, what often happens is that we end up slapping on citations to reliable sources even when the sources cited don't truly support the text in the article. We also tend to transform these reclamation projects into original research. Sometimes it is possible to retain most of the content if there are one or two good books dedicated to the subject. Otherwise, I think the best course is a complete overhaul according to a few of the best sources available. Often this requires deleting blocks of text and replacing it with new text that is appropriate with the available sources. I am hoping there is a consensus for such an overhaul. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Oldsanfelipe2, With the exception of the "Shows and special events" and "closure" subsections, I believe the entire History section is unsourced (or very poorly sourced). Shall we nuke? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Counterproposal: delete all of the unsourced material and unpopulated section titles. The organization can be improved, too. We can create new section titles as we go along. There may be a few citations that are worth saving, but there are some citations to what seem to me to be unreliable materials. Let's discuss that part. Best.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Oldsanfelipe2, I'm going to start removing some unsourced paragraphs. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done I should note, the 'Rides and attractions' section is also unsourced, but I think that might be something worth keeping and sourcing as possible. Or, if we need to be stricter here, perhaps we can simplify this by keeping just a bulleted list of the rides? I do find the links to standalone Wikipedia articles about specific rides helpful... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The previous rides and attractions section should be restored. Sources can be found for all of the coaster listings and most of the other ride listings. The current listing of rides is not acceptable.—JlACEer (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

JlACEer, I disagree. Please only add back appropriately sourced information. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Rides

For the rides, I'm currently working on a bullet list with descriptions in alphabetical order. Once we've fleshed out the entries enough and can confirm more installation dates, we can put the text in chronological order, if preferred. I invite others to help with descriptions or rides and other features as well, using journalistic coverage only, please. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Per what User:JlACEer had to offer above, I believe a list of roller coasters through some standard found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Standards would suffice or be beneficial. (Roller Coaster DataBase) has plenty to offer about these individual rides and is commonly cited by specific amusement park-articles to discern major attractions from others. Separating roller coaster's into their own section may or will have its benefits for readers rather than mixing them with flat rides, i.e. Cedar Point#List of attractions. Adog (Talk・Cont) 06:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Adog, I'm all for working to make this entry consistent with quality amusement park articles (and would love to see this page promoted to Good article status as well). I do not object to adding back information, as long as appropriate sourcing is included. The old version of this article was simply unacceptable. I'm currently expanding the article in prose form, based on journalistic secondary coverage, but I have no problem with editors more familiar with amusement park/ride articles making further improvements, structural changes, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 11:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

All good. I'll be taking looks over the article as I'm working on SeaWorld Entertainment parks at the moment as well. Happy to help when I got time. :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Adog, Wonderful, thank you. I want to thank all the editors who've weighed in the past couple days. I know I may have ruffled feathers a bit nuking the old unsourced version of the article, but I mean well. I was born and raised in Houston and have many fond memories of the park. I would love to see editors collaborate to create a quality entry for Astroworld, and appreciate you all for your feedback and improvements. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The article is already a great improvement. There is still much work to do, but I think we are moving in a good direction. I will jump in and contribute as I am able. Thanks to all, but especially to User:Another Believer. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Oldsanfelipe2, Thanks again. I hope you can scan some of the below discussions and share some thoughts if you feel inclined. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The rides section needs to be rewritten. From reading this I would never have guessed that you actually visited the park. The Alpine Sleigh was a dark ride, there was nothing "roller coaster" about it. You have a line about Bamboo Shoot but never mention that it was an Arrow log flume — an amusement park staple. These rides need to be identified by their common names. Black Dragon was an Eyerly Monster, Sky Screamer is an Intamin Free Fall, Serial Thriller is a Vekoma SLC. You have a whole paragraph devoted to Sky Screamer but those were a dime a dozen. There's nothing about Swat, one of only two S&S Sky Swats ever built and Astroworld had the first. Tidal Wave was the first Arrow Shoot-the-chutes and started the rebirth of Shoot-the-Chute rides across the planet. There's nothing about that, not even mention of the manufacturer. You're pulling random quotes from newspapers without rhyme or reason. You should have left the rides table intact.—JlACEer (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the move from chart to prose is a positive step in the right direction. Amusement park articles often get bogged down by lengthy ride charts that consume too much real estate and detract from the prose. Retaining charts for the most notable rides (which normally means the park's roller coasters) is helpful, but for defunct and/or insignificant rides, they are better served in a standalone list article where readers expect to see a lengthy chart. JlACEer, it appears there is an open invitation throughout this talk page to restore information that is properly sourced. Please do so if you have the time to commit and the backing of sources. We can worry about forking things into a separate list article at a later time. The prose covering the significant rides, however, should remain in my opinion. There's plenty of room for expansion and other improvements though, and I'm sure some corrections are needed as well. That's normal during a major overhaul. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I should not have left the rides table alone. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but the unsourced content was not appropriate. Wikipedia is not a place to store every single detail just because. This is an encyclopedia to give readers an overview of a subject, based on secondary coverage. I agree, the rides section still needs further improvement, but what I've added is based on sourcing and can continue to be expanded by you and others. I've very much welcomed all editors to aid with this effort. I will, however, be on the lookout for unsourced text and will delete without hesitation. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Features section

Currently, the Features section has three sections:

• Rides and attractions
• List of roller coasters
• Other rides

Perhaps this could be arranged as:

• Original rides and attractions
• Subsequent additions
• List of roller coasters

@Mliu92: Pinging you as a recent editor re: both the park's early history and the rides and attractions section.

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Many amusement park articles will have a level 2 section for "Areas and attractions" or something similar, with a chart listing the roller coasters as one of the first subsections. As for the rest of the attractions, sometimes these are forked over into a separate article depending on the length of the list(s) in proportion to the article size. So here, I would keep the level 2 header simple: either "Rides and attractions" or "Areas and attractions", retain the roller coaster list, and since the list of attractions is short, go ahead and include those below the roller coaster list in its own subsection (i.e. Other attractions).

If there is a vast amount of "Former rides" you'd like to list, those should generally be forked into a standalone article with a simple hatnote that links to that. Just my 2¢. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Technically, they are all former rides at this point ... I retitled these sections in keeping with the suggestion above:

• Features → Areas and Attractions
  • Rides and attractions → Ride history
  • List of roller coasters (no change)
  • Other rides → collapsed into Ride history using references to arrange them by opening date.

The Ride history section is broken up into paragraphs arranged by decade (60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s). Additional sub-sections could be added to make this more clear, but that's probably too specific. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"Technically, they are all former rides at this point"

Haha, I was speaking in general terms for amusement park articles, but yes definitely for this one, they are all former rides!

I will just add that when submitting this for WP:GA or WP:FA promotion, a lot of reviewers typically like to see the non-coaster ride chart eliminated from the main article and moved over to a dedicated list article. The most significant rides can remain in prose, and of course, the coaster chart usually remains as well. But all that really depends on who is reviewing and at what level you're trying to get it promoted to. Nice work so far getting this article cleaned up! --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

GoneIn60, Are you interested in making any changes which will make this article more consistent with other theme park GAs/FAs? I would like to see this article promoted eventually (and yes!, recent progress has been fun to watch). I'm already planning to request a copy edit by the Guild of Copy Editors once User:Mliu92 finishes their ongoing research project. I would also be interested in nominating or co-nominating for GA status. Anyone else? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I have worked on the article before, including some of the requested changes months ago (see above), but nothing extensive. There are a few articles I'm currently trying to get up to GA status, so perhaps at some point I can pitch in again (or at least help with a final lookover). --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Pre-GAN

I'd like to see this article reviewed by the Guild of Copy Editors, but I've already submitted two nominations for other articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. If another talk page watcher would like to submit a request for this article on our collective behalf, that'd mean a review sooner than later. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I would if I had the time, but unfortunately I won't anytime soon. I quickly combed through the article and added a few elements to the lead. Feel free to look them over and make further changes. I'll try to do a deeper assessment of the article body in the next few days, but from what I've seen looking good so far! --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

GoneIn60, Thanks! Appreciate your improvements to the article. To clarify, my request above is simply for someone to submit a request for a review from the GOCE, not to actually review the article itself. Once nominated, a member of the GOCE will copy edit, then we can consider a Good article nomination. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I realized what you were referring to. However, the nominator is usually the one on the hook to respond during the review, which I don't have the capacity to take on at the moment. And one other quick point in case someone beats me to it... The Legacy section may need a little refinement. I would combine this in a way to avoid having any one-sentence paragraphs. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Disregard, I was thinking of the WP:GA process. Sure, I'll nominate it at GOCE soon. No problem! --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

GoneIn60, Thanks! Correct, no work will be required from you after submitting the GOCE nom. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done – Copy edit request submitted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 and Mliu92: The request copy edit is complete. I hope you're able to review recent changes. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I reviewed the GoCE edits and agree with the changes. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. @Mliu92: Would you like to co-nom this article for Good status with me? I'd invite User:GoneIn60 as well, but not sure there's interest at this time. Last call! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist, thank you for your efforts here. Greatly appreciated!

Another Believer, sure I should be able to assist during the review. Nominate away! Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful! I will nom as soon as Mliu92 confirms as well. Looking forward! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Another Believer GoneIn60 I would be pleased to co-nominate with both of you, thanks for pushing this along. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Six Flags AstroWorld → AstroWorld – This move will place the article at the WP:COMMONNAME name by which the park was known over its entire operational time, both before and during the ownership by Six Flags, as well as currently. During its time under Six Flags, per the article, "It was marketed as 'AstroWorld: A Member of the Six Flags Family' so as to not confuse patrons with Six Flags Over Texas". In the Google Ngram comparison (configured to remove any overlap), its apparent that "AstroWorld" is used far more than Six Flags AstroWorld. This also satisfies WP:CONCISE by making the title no longer than necessary. -- Netoholic @ 10:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. This was discussed in 2012 and the consensus then was to keep the page as it is. See Six Flags AstroWorld brochure.The park's official name according to the 2004 Six Flags Annual Financial Report to shareholders (before closure of the park) was Six Flags AstroWorld. It was also listed as Six Flags AstroWorld in the 2005 Annual Report (after the park closed).—JlACEer (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, the park was intended to be known simply as "Astroworld" with its owner omitted, it was marketed as such. Although I do think if "Astroworld" was a common name with other articles, (such as Tomorrowland), then it could be left in to disambiguate per WP:NDIS. To summarise, I support based on that this is equal to Alton Towers (the far more common name) being titled Alton Towers Resort. Lazz_R 17:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

After the Six Flags acquisition it was marketed as both right up until day it closed. See: Time Warner brochure, 2005 Brochure, Entrance Plaza, Time-Warner entrance plaza. The other problem is that thanks to Travis Scott, the term Astroworld has become ambiguous.—JlACEer (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIALNAME-style arguments are not strong enough on their own. You're also asking us to interpret WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (brochures, signs,etc.) rather than give evidence for its common name as found in reliable secondary sources as I gave in the move requests. Most of your examples actually read "Six Flags AstroWorld Houston", which demonstrates how easy it is to misuse primary sources because of open interpretation. -- Netoholic @ 22:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm simply disputing your statement that it was marketed as AstroWorld. How it was marketed by the ownership requires the use of primary sources. You really haven't presented much of case other than a Google Ngram which shows percentages carried out to six decimals. How can that be statistcally relevent? If you want third party sources just do a Google search. You will see articles from the Houston Chronicle, Houston Press, KHOU Houston, Amusement Today, ABC 13, BizJournals, Roadside America, Texas Monthly — hundred of other journals and news sources, all using Six Flags AstroWorld. You'll likely find just as many using only AstroWorld. However, to me, that is not enough to warrant a page move. Per WP:OFFICIALNAME "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." You've yet to convince me that the current page title does not fulfill that requirement. It should also be noted that WP:OFFICIALNAME is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.—JlACEer (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No one is being asked to interpret primary sources. It's a matter of quoting them, which is sometimes considered the best option per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, especially when a significant number of secondary sources conflict with one another. Also, while 2 out of the 4 primary sources above mention Houston, keep in mind that Six Flags parks typically had the city name posted as a subtitle when its location wasn't obvious from the name. You can see that on display in this commercial at 0:24 (Los Angeles is listed under Six Flags Magic Mountain, Atlanta under Six Flags Over Georgia, and so on). Also another example without Houston as a subtitle is the park's main entrance as it existed in 2005: Flickr. While an argument can be made that the park existed a long time as simply AstroWorld, even in the early stages of Six Flags ownership, there's little reason to believe that it's the common name today and moving forward. A google search with a date range of 2010–present for "AstroWorld" (omitting "Travis Scott" and "Six Flags AstroWorld") shows roughly the same number of reliable hits as "Six Flags AstroWorld" using the same date range. Both have reliable hits that taper off after page 8. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support move; no opinion on capitalization. "Six Flags AstroWorld" clearly isn't the common name. ONR (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

How is that clear? You haven't made any statements to support your opinion.—JlACEer (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose; I would adamantly dissent with opposing since the commonality of a name is different from the conventions when considering the recognized legality of a name (WP:NCCORP) to disambiguate an article title, where Apple Inc. is not simply Apple (company). I wouldn't think this would be an issue, however, because of the release of Travis Scott's album of the same name, it would be necessary to disambiguate by its legal name rather than what it is commonly known as to better differentiate the two subjects. Adog (Talk・Cont) 18:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adog: - Please provide a source that this is the "legal name". -- Netoholic @ 03:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A simple lookup of trademarks on the United States Patent and Trademarks Office seem to turn up both alternatives, both Six Flags AstroWorld and AstroWorld by itself. Still the point stands that it would be better to disamig by the Six Flags title. Adog (Talk・Cont) 12:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, it is listed in the 2004 and 2005 annual reports. I could go back further, but I think the point has been made. The annual report is required to disclose the company's legal name as well as the legal names of the subsidiaries under which it does business.—JlACEer (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - The evidence provided lacks the necessary justification needed for the move. Ngram comparisons are not typically enough on their own. They are sometimes flawed, providing incorrect context and OCR scan conversions, especially when the number of sources being evaluated are small in number. In the comparison provided above, there are less than 80 hits for each phrase composition. If that's not enough to raise red flags (and it should be), consider that there are quite a few hits for ((AstroWorld + Astroworld)-(Six Flags Astroworld + Six Flags Astroworld)) that shouldn't be showing up in the results or given any weight in the comparison:

A Capital Case in America... – This book covers an event that occurred at the Astroworld Hotel, not the amusement park, using Astroworld as a shorthand name for the hotel. Clearly this source wouldn't be expected to contain "Six Flags".

Halfway Home – This fictional story mentions Astroworld once in a brief, passing mention: a character's dialogue. This example is irrelevant.

Business Venezuela, Volumes 189-192 – This one actually states "Six Flags Astroworld". No reason for this to be in the results.

TexasMonthly: Horse Power – This is a good example of Ngram at its worst. This result is being counted in the 1980 date range, but as you can see here, the only reason it shows up is because information for Travis Scott's "Astroworld" album somehow made its way into the source's metadata.

I didn't look at every hit, but I'm sure we'd uncover more examples if we kept digging. The point is that when you're dealing with a very small sampling, Ngram really can't be trusted. Also it begs the question whether major publications like this and this are being taken into account. I wouldn't bet on it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The AstroWorld Hotel was literally connected with the AstroWorld park - almost every mention of the Hotel will also contain reference to the park, and we cover the hotel in this article anyway... so evidence of it being called "Astroworld" is actually evidence in favor of this move per COMMONNAME. I think no one is making the case the Ngrams is perfect... but on a macro level it certainly is showing a huge difference. -- Netoholic @ 03:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The Astroworld hotel was part of the Astrodomain and was across the street from the park. It was never owned by Six Flags. The Astrodome, Astro Hall, Astro Bank and other Astrodomain businesses didn't use the Six Flags designation either.—JlACEer (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No one is saying that Ngram doesn't provide valuable insight either. However, the smaller the sampling, the less you can trust it, and in many cases, you need a lot more than just an Ngram comparison to claim COMMONNAME. I would say this is one of those times. Also, while I disagree with your support of the "Capital Case in America" source, it doesn't really matter. It's just one of several anomalies I came across in the early part of my assessment, and it doesn't appear you're refuting the others. Point has been made and is still valid. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.