# Talk:Oblivion (roller coaster)

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

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)

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)

2nd Ias, 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)
2nd Ias, 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 [1] 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)

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)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs, in the "Ride experience" section. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Z1720, the ride experience section is akin to a plot summary in the sense that the ride itself is the primary source for the material. Basic descriptions of the layout don't require sources, but as you can see at Millennium Force when it was promoted to FA, a minimal number of sources are needed for specific measurements, element names, and so forth. These sections are also often accompanied by an official POV video created by the amusement park (which won't last forever, so hopefully we can archive those eventually).Also, participation at WP:APARKS has been in decline over the years, despite an occasional spurt here and there. Most of the drive to get amusement-related articles promoted to GA and FA were done by editors that are no longer active, and very few with experience watch the pages. They fall victim to drive-bys that add erroneous, uncited info. It might be more worthwhile to try to tidy them up if you can spare the time. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
@GoneIn60: Unfortunately, I do not have the time nor the will to make the necessary improvements. As you point out above, some of the prose in the "Ride experience" is akin to plot, but other information (like "The turn uses a horizontal chain mechanism not used on any other B&M dive coaster") does need to be cited. Are you or any other editor willing to address the concerns? Z1720 (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I won't for quite some time unfortunately (busy outside of Wikipedia). If no one else responds soon, then I recommend restoring the "Ride experience" section to its former reviewed version. The ride hasn't been modified since that review. That would be preferred over demotion if the rest of the article seems fine. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
@GoneIn60: Thanks for your work on this. There are still lots of uncited statements in the "Ride experience" section: while some might be covered under MOS:PLOT and don't require citations, there are other statements that do. I would also suggest expanding the lead to include all aspects of the article. Are you (or anyone else reading this) still interested in working on this? Z1720 (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't anticipate I'll have any time to work on this in the near future. I can leave a note at WT:APARKS, but if there's no response within a week or so, I'd go ahead and take it to GAR. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)


### Oblivion (roller coaster)
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending 
Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The lead also needs to be expanded to include all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I have removed all unsourced statements and will soon work on expanding the lead. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
@Plighting Engineerd: I see that the lead is still quite short. Are you still working on this, or is this ready for a re-review? Z1720 (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
@Z1720: Hi! Sorry, some stuff came up IRL which ended yesterday and I have this whole week free to work on this. I am still planning to make improvements. Sorry about that! Plighting Engineerd (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@JlACEer: Hi! Regarding the inclusion of the inflation-adjusted value in the article, I wanted to say a few things.
Firstly, the edit which you reverted was simply me cleaning up how the inflation values were formatted, and didn't change the actual content much. Given your edit description I assume you were meaning to actually remove the inflation value, which was added a few edits prior. Given this, I have restored the previous version, but if removing the inflation-adjusted value is the correct way forward, we can do that.
You mentioned that consensus in the WikiProject had decided not to adjust values for inflation. I may be missing something, but all I was able to find was this discussion from 2014, where it was decided not to add inflation-adjusted values to infoboxes, with the reason cited being not making the already large infobox more cluttered.
I personally think, however, that it benefits pages to have the inflation-adjusted value in the prose, as I don't believe it adds clutter, and instead helps readers get a perspective for how much the construction of the attraction cost the park in today's money.
Additionally, you asked 'why 2023' – I did not choose 2023 as the comparison value, it's all automatically handled by Template:Inflation. 2023 is just the most recent year which that template's dataset has, so that is what will be displayed until a more up-to-date value is added to the template. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

How is it "today's money" if it is two years out of date?—JlACEer (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
It's 25 years more more recent than the 1998 value; plus, the fact that 2023 is the most recent value is simply an issue with the template and I believe not a reason we should avoid using it. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Just a comment that I'm not seeing a major difference between the two positions. We should always keep WP:DATED in mind, but as long as the conversion year is mentioned, that should suffice. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I was suggested to start discussion about the queueline experience to here. I'm not sure why it matters, the character in the queue videos is clearly not named anywhere in the attraction and no reliable sources name the character. The only reliable source that names the queue stages is different to what was written and says:
"Four stages have been identified physical trauma, psychological breakdown, the schizophrenic sequence and finally chaos. Each stage will be used within the queue line to make you very afraid the ride starts when you join the queue."
So instead should this interpretation be inserted though it's from one source? The other cited 1998 source only mentions "chaos".
I don't think this detail is even necessary for wikipedia when it is not explicit in the ride. I thought the point was to add reliable information, not to add interpretations from ambiguous sources and so editing this is helpful to have a more accurate, reliable article.--Detachio (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Detachio: Hi! A few things here. Firstly, you stated, "If you read the citations you'll see they dont contain the false info stated here"; I wrote the prose regarding the queue simply using the sources I cited, so I am unsure how that conclusion was reached.
Additionally, there are multiple reliable sources which state the four stages which the queue videos describe. The Burton Mail source states, "Four stages have been identified", and the Birmingham Evening Mail source states, "A ... figure outlines the four stages passengers would go through".
As for the names of the stages, The Burton Mail source mentions "physical trauma, psychological breakdown, the schizophrenic sequence and finally chaos", and the Birmingham Evening Mail writer states, "Physically I would suffer sweaty palms, and psychologically I would suffer dreams about the ride ... The third stage was the point of no return, when the grinning maniac outlined the doubts I would suffer. Should I go on the ride or not? ... Chaos, the name of the final stage". They both use slightly different wording but get the same point across, and I don't see a reason not to mention these.
You added that some of these stages were removed since the ride's debut – from what I have seen on forums and the like, I get the sense this is accurate, but I can't find any reliable sources which mention this, so I don't think we can include it. Perhaps instead we can reword the sentence to say, "upon the ride's opening, the stages were ..." or something like that?
Moving away from the stages, on the topic of the character's name, "Lord of Darkness" is not conjecture but appears in both the RideRater source (which I'll get to talking about in a moment) and also other places online, such as the fireworks show you mentioned; most notably, on Renny Krupinski's site, he lists a role as "The Lord of Darkness" for "Oblivion, Alton Towers, Director: Phil Taylor".
I don't see a reason not to include the character's name, even if it isn't mentioned in the attraction itself, but I understand that that hinges on whether the RideRater source is reliable.
Speaking of that source, it appears reliable to me and certainly far from an unprofessional fansite, though I am by no means an expert on the RS guidelines. RideRater mentions editorial guidelines and the like, and it appears to be professional based on its about page. Furthermore, the article previously cited on this page was of the "News" category and not an opinion piece. I see that GoneIn60 created a discussion topic on the WikiProject Amusement Parks talk page, so we'll see if anyone else has any input.
Thanks for bringing this discussion to the talk page. Let me know if I've missed anything! Plighting Engineerd (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I concur with Plighting Engineerd and have restored this for now. Detachio needs to stay engaged at this point and respond to the valid points made above. We can always circle back and remove the contested information if that's the consensus. Since all of it is properly cited, I see no reason to rush in its removal.Also, the claim about RideRater seems unfounded. They have been mentioned by other reliable sources, such as this one and this one. They were also used as a source here. In addition, they self-describe themselves as a news reporting site with a team of contributors (which tends to go beyond the typical fan site). Unless it can be shown to the contrary, I think it is an acceptable source in the way it is used at this article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I added in some info about the noise complaints which led to the audio "Don't Look Down" being removed from the ride experience and about the queue line video. I wanted to include that the original video was cut following the Smiler crash but I am not sure that this is the case. Normally I think you wouldn't bother including queue line details like this but it's such a short coaster the theming is significant. I hope this is OK.Trellism (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)