Talk:RollerCoaster Tycoon

message: I removed the following section from the article:
:==Objectives==
:Objectives for the RCT games include:
:* # of guests by October, Year # with a park rating of @ least 600
:* Park Value of (depends on which currency you can use) # by October, Year #
:* # of guests without dropping 700 in park value
:* Complete 5 roller coasters with excitement rating @ least #.##
:* Have fun! (Do whatever you want!)
It's poorly written and the last bullet is POV.  If someone wants to take a shot at rewriting it, please do so.  I think it'd be a nice addition to the article, but is just too hard to decifer in its current state. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:36, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
:It is indeed. I may re-write it soon. • Thorpe • 18:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me note that the list is almost the exact wordings of the scenario objectives in the game, and I can see what it tries to say. Also note that the last objective, although looked like out of place, is very true. (The last scenario, Mega Park, which can only be unlocked when all other pervious scenario are finished, has exactly this objective, according to the game. It serves as an award to all who win the game) --Lemontea 03:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: I think the Errors section is wrong.  I've been using RCT under Windows XP for years and never had any of the problems described.  Is there some external verification for it? — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:00, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
*From official site: The latest version of RollerCoaster Tycoon is V1.08.187. Rollercoaster Tycoon can now be played under Microsoft Windows 2000. I rewrote the section as well.--DooMDrat 11:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
:When I tried to install RCT on XP, it didn't work until I got the patch, so that section is most definately right. — GurraJG 18:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors erronious

message: The page looks crowded without those line spacing breaks just to fix image placement, especially at and after the RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 section. We could just use those  html tags to make the spaces without leaving huge gaps in the editing section, so it wouldn't be as crowded. --FlyingPenguins 06:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just fixed most spacing issues, but it still looks pretty bad.  What really needs to happen is to have the entries for RC2 and RC3 spun off into articles themselves.  When the entries were first added, they were too small to be complete articles.  But now, with all the content (text and images), I think they'd be better as separate articles, where we'd have more placement and formatting options. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, Frecklefoot. The article(s) should be like it was several months before, with a summary of RCT2 & RCT3 on the main RCT article, and a link to their separate articles. Still, I think that the RCT2 & RCT3 should be expanded sometime. --FlyingPenguins 06:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, well I made them into separate articles but they were merged into one article. -- Thorpe talk 12:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: So are we or are we not going to split the articles? I really think that we should. --FlyingPenguins 19:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That is what we are deciding. Unfortunately, no one replied anymore. --FlyingPenguins 18:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-written the whole thing. Hopefully it shouldn't need splitting, now. Run! 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page spacing 

message: I really think that the list of fansites in the external links need trimming badly, per Wikipedia:External links. Perhaps it should be trimmed to the most popular site, as determined by Alexa rank.--Drat (Talk) 13:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, if there is one, a fansite which links extensively to other fansites.  -- Run!  14:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the Alexa rank should matter so much. For example, RCT*Mart has a Alexa rating of 1,256,007. However, it is an extensive site, with downloads and a large forum, and is often linked and referred to by the official Atari forums. I think that a fan site should be covered by its content and size, not just Alexa rating. --FlyingPenguins 02:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've re-alphabetised them, since that's the order that they're supposed to be in on wikipedia.  -- Run!  17:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd assume that was a mistake.  -- Run!  20:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't have the time to put the fansite on the right article. Some are for RCT 3 and some are for RCT 2. Please put them back if you like but try not to explain too much detail for each link. --Thorpe | talk 00:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should fansites that cater to all three games be under the main series article, and/or all RCT1, 2, and 3? --FlyingPenguins 06:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a fansite that contributes to all three types of series, that would be a good idea to have added. If its for like only two of the series, they probably could be put on their own page since it's not exactly relevant to another version of the game. --BC 15:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: In regards to the small paragraph:
"Some people did, however, defend Frontier Developments' work on the game by pointing out that Chris Sawyer rarely participated in or listened to the community, and saying that he would've most likely kept the game 2D, such as Rollercoaster Tycoon 2."
I was an avid fan of the series; played the game since RCT1 was in it's demo stage and visited many RCT communities. I can say that many of the fans, although they would have liked to see the game go 3D, felt that it would take away any appeal from the original game. Most wanted the game to stay in its 2D, isometric view. With the conversion to 3D, the game lost many fans.
I'm just not sure if that paragraph is valid. It's not really backed up by anything. Saying that Chris Sawyer didn't listen to the fans is kind of... awry. If the fans wanted the game to stay in 2D, then why would Chris need to listen to them? 
I guess my point isn't backed up either, but you'll just have to trust me on this one.
:It's a weasel word (WP:AWW) in any case, so it should be removed.  -- Run!  10:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to be honest the game developers did listen back when i was a moderator on the Official Atari forums in 2004/2005. They did listen to us gamers, we were not ignored by far. --BC 02:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RCT3 Controversy 

message: :Image:RollerCoaster Tycoon 3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:RollerCoaster Tycoon 3.jpg

message: :Image:RollerCoaster Tycoon (Xbox).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:RollerCoaster Tycoon (Xbox).jpg

message: If the books are mentioned why is the Rollercoaster Tycoon board game not mentioned?  Surely it is just as relevant?  82.40.132.163 (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Board game 

message: Should this be moved to RollerCoaster Tycoon (Series) and the other page to the current name of this one? It makes more sense for this to be named "Series" so the one that says (Game) can be moved here. It's mostly how all the other series go on the Wiki. I wanted to get the OK before doing so. StarfoxRoy|guestbook| 23:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Move 

message: The image :File:Rct2 magicmountain.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Rct2 magicmountain.jpg

message: With the release of RCT3D, there are technically no longer just three games in the series, though the opening paragraph calls it a trilogy. Should this be changed?
Musicmaster890 (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still a trilogy? 

message: Has it been released on Switch in Europe? Nintendo Life claims that the game has been released today, but there's no mention of it on Nintendo of Europe's release schedule. JamminBen also claims that it wasn't released on November 29th. Would someone back me or him up please? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  European release for Switch 

message: The original price of RCT when it was released in 1999 was not $5.99. It was $39.99. In the LA Times Article linked below, the price of the game at release is at the end of the article. Please update the article to reflect the true price.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-jun-07-fi-45067-story.html 206.219.255.152 (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , but 39.99 was standard for the day, so this shouldn't even be mentioned in the first place. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2019 

message: Can editing be unlocked for this page? There are many grammatical errors in the Legacy section. Slusho815 (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this would be ok, we have a fair number of eyes on this particular article, but defer to you. -- ferret (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't even look like the page is protected. Is it simply missing the template up top? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, top icon is just missing. It's protected till April. -- ferret (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlocked. Please watch out for any edits from sockpuppets of the banned long-term vandal, . All such edits should be reverted on sight. --Yamla (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing locked