Template talk:Infobox roller coaster

message: Can someone please modify the code so that when a coaster is under construction, the :Category:Roller coasters introduced in yyyy does not get added?  This causes problems when editors create categories for things that might happen in the future.  :Category:Roller coasters introduced in 2013 was approved for deletion but the template is adding a coaster to that category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Themeparkgc  Talk  22:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future years 

message: I propose the deprecation of the "extend" parameter in this infobox in favour of having numbered locations (e.g. ,  etc). The main reason I am proposing this is the dodgy alignment that results when this parameter is used. I can't seem to work a way around this. Some examples are Batman The Escape and Flashback (Six Flags Magic Mountain). At the time of writing 74 pages use this template. Thoughts? Themeparkgc  Talk  06:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: is the idea to switch  to use ?  in that case, it does seem like we would need a separate field for each embedded extended template, but might work with the current method. Frietjes (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed  to use , does this fix the problem? Frietjes (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome. So simple. Thanks for fixing up the dual infobox stuff as well. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  no problem.  by the way, do we need the top heading to use italics?  seems odd to have the first location without italics and the subsequent locations in italics. Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: They all had italics at one stage. It seems  pulled them from part of the infobox a couple of weeks ago. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see. I removed the italics from the extended box for consistency. Frietjes (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deprecate "extend" parameter in favour of numbered locations? 

message: I noticed when filling out the "manufacturer" field, this template automatically creates a link to the manufacturer page. But when one fills out the "designer" field, no link is automatically created. Could we also add auto-linking for the "designer" field? Srezz (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather go the other way around and remove the autolinking. Frietjes (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The autolinking is only there on the manufacturer field because the raw value is used for categorisation in one of the subcats of :Category:Roller coasters by manufacturer. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto-linking designer field 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox attraction#"Replaced by" vs "Replacement".  Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 16:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[Template talk:Infobox attraction#"Replaced by" vs "Replacement"]]

message: A change to the list of available statuses for this infobox is being considered at the following discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks#Status fields in attraction articles. Please add your thoughts and comments there. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment at WikiProject Amusement Parks 

message: Is there any objection to adding an  parameter to this template? This would bring it in line with  and allow an alternate name to appear in the top ride location (currently, subsequent ride locations allow an alternate name to be specified with ). I've mocked it up in the sandbox. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 18:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: With no objections, I've gone ahead and added the parameter. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 21:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add altname parameter 

message: This is documented as "".
In Mighty Canadian Minebuster, PTC is auto-linked to the DAB page PTC instead of to Philadelphia Toboggan Coasters. Can someone fix this problem please? Narky Blert (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Just changed it to Philadelphia Toboggan Coasters. --Elisfkc (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: TY! I never like messing with the internals of complex templates for fear of breaking something. Narky Blert (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I try to avoid it to, which is why I changed it on the article, not the template. --Elisfkc (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: The manufacturer= field

message: Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, infoboxes should really only be summarizing "key facts that appear in the article"; it should not be introducing the petty, insignificant ones that aren't mentioned anywhere in the body. See the discussion in the previous section for some earlier commentary.If I had to make a list of ones to remove or deprecate, here's what I'd throw in (from top to bottom in the template description):
:
                       	
subsection             	single_rider
capacity               	accessible
gforce                 	transfer_accessible
restriction (all forms)	assistive_listening
trains                 	cc
carspertrain           	theme
rowspercar             	video (all forms)
ridersperrow           	capacity
Most of these are trivial – the kind of stuff you'd find in a park brochure or rider safety guide. Others may be less trivial, but they have no place in the infobox, which should be listing the creme of the crop among stats. The borderline trivial ones can find a home in the article body somewhere in prose. Maybe there's a few more we can remove, or maybe some of these should remain, but it's a start. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In my belief, I think that the trains, cpt, rpc, and rpr are useful parameters in the infobox as roller coaster cars come in all shapes and sizes and mentioning its distinct capacity features are useful to readers (depending on the ride, the trains can be subject to diverse coverage based on features/theming). More importantly, theme is key to rides that reside in theme parks (and likewise when not), as such is usually centered around the subject of substantial commentary/mentions and would take on a good part of the rides characteristics. I would concur with the rest listed. Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to verify, you're in favor of keeping trains, carspertrain, rowspercar, ridersperrow, and theme? Yes, I would consider those to be among the "less trivial" parameters I hinted at above, but the train parameters do still suffer from the fact that they aren't usually covered in reliable sources outside of RCDB. So by listing them in a prominent position (the infobox), we're elevating the importance of a feature that reliable sources apparently aren't placing any emphasis on. For me, that's still an issue. Coverage in sources should be the ultimate litmus test that tells us if it should appear in the infobox. Some sources do mention the total number of riders that can fit on a train, but they don't generally break it down to rows, cars, or the number of trains.As for theme, I can see why we'd keep that in there. For some roller coasters, it's a crucial characteristic. I'll go ahead and cross that off the list. Also just as a reminder, anything we agree to axe from the infobox can still exist in the article body with an inline citation (assuming it doesn't violate WP:NOTGUIDE). --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be okay with this as well. Some of the journals and newspapers I use for reference often include rows, cars per train and number of trains in a sidebar or a printed info box. It's often in a press release also. That would tend to make it somewhat encyclopedic.—JlACEer (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, just so it's clear, I'm not suggesting the information can't be in the article with proper references. I'm just questioning whether it should be in the infobox designating it as a "key fact". I'll drop the contention for now. We'll be making significant progress either way by removing all the others listed above. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with your perspective on trains (and yes carspertrain, rowspertrain and ridersperrow as what you said is correct, I was lazy at that moment to type it out), but could we then format that into a new parameter possibly designated for "total riders" by itself or is that still in contention with the key principle and/or sources? I think it's important to have some idea of the trains because it's essentially the other half of the coaster, but I think that involves a second opinion because I don't know if that is good. Adog (Talk・Cont) 19:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Sounds appropriate, and never too late to make decisions! Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing inappropriate parameters from the infobox