This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arts 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.ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsTemplate:WikiProject ArtsWikiProject Arts
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
In my opinion, this list was a bit of a mess whose organization made no sense. I alphabetized the list by state and then by city, which is how the National Register organizes its lists. I realize there are other ways to organize it, so if this violates the original intention of the list, I have no objection to it being organized differently. I do think, however, that it should be organized in some recognizable order for it to be beneficial. Farragutful (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jackdude101, I realize you do great work adding and organizing the content for these kinds of articles, and that is greatly appreciated! However, I'm just wondering if it is really necessary to have a dedicated standalone article for every single entry in the list. Per WP:GEOFEAT and possibly WP:NBUILD, historic places and structures on the NRHP are generally presumed to be notable, but the guideline reminds throughout that in-depth coverage of the subject is also a requirement. When we have NRHP-related amusement rides with very limited coverage, I think it's reasonable to consider a paragraph description within the main park article where it resides and link to that instead of a knee-jerk approach to automatically creating/justifying a standalone article. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GoneIn60, thanks for opening the discussion. While GEOFEAT does say that NRHP-listed sites are presumed to be notable (Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable.), this also doesn't preclude these articles from being merged with others, per WP:NOPAGE. If a page is a permastub, it may be prudent to merge that page with another, more detailed article. However, if at least 3-4 paragraphs can be written about the subject, it would no longer be a stub (in most cases) and could probably stand alone as its own article. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GoneIn60: There are arguments on both sides for having or not having these individual carousel articles, but in the case of the ones for Cedar Point (those seem to be the ones everyone here cares about the most), having the individual articles is a plus because it will allow the content for those carousels in the Cedar Point article to be moved off of it, which will be a small step towards upgrading the Cedar Point article to featured status and become the first article about an American amusement park with that distinction. If you look at the article for Warner Bros. Movie World, the only currently operating amusement park worldwide whose article is featured, a "less is more" approach was taken with its ride descriptions, and I believe a similar treatment for the Cedar Point article will be beneficial. I'm actually a bit surprised that the Cedar Point article isn't featured yet, given that so many seasoned Wikipedia editors are invested in it, and because it's had good article status for over a decade. Jackdude101talkcont16:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the feedback. My primary concern was just that we took the pros and cons into consideration, and that we are fairly sure that each standalone article getting created will eventually have a significant amount of detailed coverage. When that's not the case, such as when there is only a paragraph or two worth of detail, then the typical expectation on Wikipedia is that the content would instead be merged into an article covering a related topic from a broader perspective – generally anything under 10 sentences or 300 words.I understand that we don't want to clutter up amusement park articles with long charts containing lengthy ride descriptions, but there are other alternatives. For amusement parks that have a long history and a lot of rides, we can and should create standalone list articles to cover those rides instead of having them all listed in the main park article. The ride list article can then have lengthy charts/descriptions without any issues. For parks with a short history or a relatively small number of rides, having the charts/descriptions in the main park article will suffice. Either approach is better than a 1-2 paragraph permastub that likely wouldn't hold up in a PAM or RfD.I didn't check the entire list, but there are quite a few standalone stubs where the option to merge should be taken into consideration:
If we're talking about improving Wikipedia in general by deleting stub articles (almost 4 million according to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics) and merging their content elsewhere, time will be best spent by first focusing on the ones that are poorly sourced and formatted, and riddled with issue tags (we already know there are several lifetime's worth of those). Other stubs that are properly sourced and formatted like the examples you posted above can be tackled last, and by the time they are tackled, they may very well have been expanded and no longer be stubs. Here is an example of a past version of the Memphis Grand Carousel article (before I found it and revised it) that exemplifies chopping block status: [1]. With all do respect, it sounds like the expectation here is that every new article needs to be at least good article quality on day one, which, to me at least, is neither realistic nor necessary. As a comparison to art, not every piece presented needs to be a floor-to-ceiling masterpiece. Brief sketches work, too, as long as they're formally drawn on an easel and not on a cocktail napkin. Jackdude101talkcont17:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a good point. Stubs that have sources are a low priority for sure. Time is definitely better spent on the ones missing details and lacking proper sourcing. With that said, once the cleanup has happened and it's still a stub (with a low likelihood of further expansion in the near future), then we should consider a merge at that point. Also, when creating new articles, we should at least be confident there's enough out there to get beyond stub status. I'm definitely NOT saying it has to be a C-class or better article out the gate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
