WikiProject Amusement Parks

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Amusement Parks This page 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

Hey everyone! Who ever is here or around. In my sandbox, User:Adog/sandbox2, I have finally finished a general type-out of some of the rough-rough ideas from here, and here. It took six months right? I did not put in the new UI GoneIn60 created into the sandbox yet, however, you can view that right here. In the sandbox, you can find two new banners, a research guide, a perennial sources list, a start to some new changes to the collaboration tab (maybe the barnstars can be merged or a two-level system), and finally the thing that needs to most scrutinization: a non-official APARKS notability guide. I took most of the ideas from previous discussions, and from my readings on guide after guide. It is mostly aimed at new users, and attempts to solve some problems regarding the limbo system of information inclusion. If anything is wrong, feel free to edit it for anything: grammar, functional idea changes, an idea you wanna throw in there, delete whatever does not feel right. Hopefully these can be rolled out by the end of the year, and what else we have not thought of yet.

Forewarn, it is a lot of information. If you are not into that stuff skip this post, but, I would appreciate your help with our project's future. Adog (Talk・Cont) 11:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adog: Hi there! I know this is a relatively old topic, but I think this is worth bringing up again. I've skimmed the linked talk pages and almost all the ideas seem really solid. Since this project seemingly has had a bit more life breathed into it recently with the upcoming revival of Project B&M, I was thinking maybe the changes discussed in late 2022 could see some implementation. I think a visual makeover to this project would be really nice, and I've been mocking up a possible re-design of the main WikiProject page at User:Plighting Engineerd/WikiProject Amusement Parks (permalink). Note: PC standard width on light mode doesn't look great, but all other combinations of device, color, and width should work. A logo and theme color would be a good way to tie everything together as well.

Regarding the talks to close project B&M, as of right now, it seems it's certainly best to keep it open. Work has started back up again, including 1 new GA promotion and 1 new GA nomination. Ping @Therguy10: on this one. I think giving it a specific time window (maybe a year) could be good, however.

I think the pages drafted at User:Adog/sandbox2 seem very good, and would be useful to have available here. Perhaps a consolidated "resources" page would be helpful, containing links to other guidance pages, such as the existing templates page, and the proposed pages on guiding research and evaluating sources. This would also help cut down the number of tabs, as at standard width, it looks quite cramped, both on the current layout and the one drafted in my sandbox (which was adapted from User:GoneIn60's sandbox, by the way).

As for the 'exposure' sections mentioned in the 2022 discussions, a refreshed talk page welcome + Wikipedia ad that could be more in line with the project's proposed visual overhaul would be great. Overall, increased use of such templates could help as well.

Additionally, I think starting back up the newsletter would be good too. I'd be more than happy to write it if no one else wants to. Quarterly seems about right for the schedule in my opinion.

Overall, I think the discussions from 2022 brought up a lot of good points that could help refresh the project, and implementing some of the proposals would be great. If anyone else has any input on any of these points, either the ones I listed above or the ones from those two talk pages, that would be great! Plighting Engineerd (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plighting Engineerd Replying to my ping here, I agree that a timetable for OPB&M could be just fine. I’d suggest a year and then a revisit; it could be continued if it was successful, or moved on from if not as successful!

Therguy10 (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that! OPB&M is where the motivation is at the moment, so I don't think there's any sense in closing it anytime super soon, but I think a project rotation could be a good idea to keep things fresh. I don't think OPB&M would have to be shelved after a year either – possibly just moved down, or off of the main 'collaboration' page to spotlight a different project. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have created a preliminary draft/mockup of what a logo for the project could possibly look like, and I've added it to my sandbox page as well. I think something along the lines of this could be good to tie together the project's visual refresh. I've used a theme color of blue here, but that, along with literally everything else I've made here, is very open to change (or open to not being used in the slightest). If anyone has any feedback on any of this, it would be appreciated :D Plighting Engineerd (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally i love this, looks much better than whats currently on the page CosmicVortecs (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plighting Engineerd that looks really nice. Would this replace the image that currently is there Because I feel like that should definitely be updated as well.

(And maybe I'm bias here, but why make the blue a "Millennium Force" blue? Might be a neat little easter egg. [You could also add a hint of silver too but that's definitely just my bias opinion])

Therguy10 (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plighting Engineerd did we ever get a chance to implement this logo? And which sandbox might the preview be in? Thanks. Therguy10 (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I think implementing this along with the redesign of the project would be good. The sandbox is User:Plighting Engineerd/WikiProject Amusement Parks. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this looks fantastic! I definitely am in full support of the redesign. I’m not sure what jurisdiction we’d (I use the term “we” lightly here; I did nothing to help with this lol) need to go through to implement all of this.

I’m assuming you’d like to follow through with this is one motion, rather than gradually. Correct me if I’m wrong. Therguy10 (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a community WikiProject, so I don't think there's any approval process or anything – we can just change it – but we should get a general consensus from members of the project first.

And yes, I think it would make the most sense to do the visual overhaul as one personally, but other changes could be made after. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like jurisdiction wasn’t the right term for me to use, but yes I agree.

And the overhaul sounds good. I’m not sure if you saw the second topic I discussed on your talk page, but it regards the members’ census. I believe we should run the members’ consensus before this one. That way we send the redesign notice to active members.

Of course, we could merge them together into one. We could also send the redesign first, as awaiting a members’ consensus could take some time. Therguy10 (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The words census and consensus being so similar is getting confusing to me haha. I don't know that we would need to send out a message to members about the redesign, but we could make a new topic on this talk page to get feedback and possibly link to it with a notice at the top of the WikiProject's main page. Mainly I want to get the opinion of someone who has more experience with the project (such as GoneIn60). Plighting Engineerd (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plighting Engineerd lol my mistake! Let me make sure I’m on the same page.

The “census” I’m talking about is listed here as tentatively scheduled. This never seemed to happen. I wanted to check if this is something we wanted to follow through on before any refreshes.

The “consensus” I think we’re referring too is opinions on the refresh. (Aka, thoughts from Gonein60 and updating changes on the message board or something, rather than just messaging every member) I also think a notice is a good idea.

Apologies for the confusion! Therguy10 (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the census was scheduled to happen, might as well send messages out to all the members on that list. The census message could also mention the overhaul, and ask for any input on it. I've been lurking for a while on this topic, the overhaul looks really good and I expect most people would be in support, but no harm in checking with the census. CosmicVortecs (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plighting Engineerd If you don’t have any objections, I may be able to work on that members’ census this weekend. I may ask for some assistance drafting a message.

And is the redesign ready for immediate deployment? I still believe we should at least make Gone aware of everything. Therguy10 (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Therguy10: Sorry for the (3 months) late reply, I somehow missed this message. Doing the members' census would be a good idea sometime soon. The main page redesign is essentially ready to go, and the new banner can be applied to all the other pages, but the reworked versions of the other pages haven't been made yet. I think it's better start somewhere and add the rest of the pages later, since I think the amount of work required to get it all done has stopped this from moving forward in the past (e.g. back in 2023). We can start with the main page and new banner, then work on reorganizing the rest of the content. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is probably obvious, but just to be sure. We want to go with the current list of members on the main page right? Therguy10 (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's right. The big thing left to discuss is what to include in the census message, which (probably) relies on decisions about the newsletter. More info is in the census and newsletter sections in the Project Retrack thread below when you're able to get to them :) Plighting Engineerd (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the template. You can now add 2025 placings for parks and roller coasters to their respective articles.

https://goldenticketawards.com/2025-gta-winners/ Somarain (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is appreciated, thanks! -- GoneIn60 (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Oblivion (roller coaster) § Article review regarding multiple concerns over the article's current state. Any editors able to dedicate some time to tidy up the article are encouraged to participate, thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinions on this site? Seems fairly legit, although I would lean on anyone from the UK and their expertise with sourcing in their region to weigh in. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there wasn't a top icon for user pages for this WikiProject, so I made one. If you want, you can edit the icon for it. You can use it by adding {{User:BlueStaticHorse/Topicons/Wikiproject-AmusementParks/}} to your userpage. BlueStaticHorse (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, this is very cool! Plighting Engineerd (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also I believe there needs to be a slash at the end for it to work: {{User:BlueStaticHorse/Topicons/Wikiproject-AmusementParks/}} Plighting Engineerd (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should I create an info box for ride accidents? AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are there enough articles for that to be relevant? And what fields would such an infobox have? Plighting Engineerd (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how many articles there are for it to be relevant but I do have an article where it would be useful. But some fields could be date, park, deaths, injuries, cause. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this convo. Mind sharing the article you're considering? I'm trying to picture a scenario where this type would be useful. In case you weren't aware, infoboxes are placed in the lead section and summarize the article's key facts (see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). We already have infoboxes for park and ride articles, and in a list article covering multiple incidents, I'm not sure how you could have fields like "Park" and "Cause". -- GoneIn60 (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking 2023 Jetline roller coaster accident, right now theres an event infobox that I learned existed after I made the thread. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems to fill the need pretty well. But for the heck of it, I went ahead and checked the main categories for this: Category:Amusement park accidents and Category:Amusement park fires. Of the 13 articles listed, only 6 are actually focusing on an incident. Probably not enough to justify the creation of a new infobox. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I as thinking. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's the 50th anniversary for Six Flags Great America and California's Great America, and I think a great way to bring some more life into this WikiProject would be to create a project on the collaboration tab here!

A draft page for this collaboration is located at User:Plighting Engineerd/sandbox2.

The goal would be to improve the quality of articles about both Great America parks and ultimately promote as many as possible to good article or better.

This would appear above Operation B&M while it is active, so I'll ping @Therguy10: on this.

Also, I've seen that @Feather Better: has put a LOT of work into the Six Flags Great America article, so I'd love to get some input on that.

In any case, I think this would be a great way to work on some articles and get some more collaboration and activity going in the WikiProject! Plighting Engineerd (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I propose a notice is posted on the main page of this WikiProject, as the 'tasks' section of the main page is currently not seeing much use. I will ping GoneIn60 here as he has been a member of the WikiProject for longer and I think his feedback would be valuable here! Plighting Engineerd (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please don't be daunted by the size of this message – you don't have to read all of it! I just want to get some more discussion going about the future of this project :)

As has been discussed previously, this project is undergoing a few changes; see previous discussions (1, 2, 3) for further background. There have been various threads regarding this, but I wanted to make one big thread to put it all in one place.

This post will be organized into sections, so comments can be made about individual parts of the project/proposal.

This is the part where I ping a bunch of people who I want to notify about this discussion: Therguy10, as he has been helping me with this project lots, GoneIn60, Astros4477, Epicgenius and Adog, as they have been in the project a lot longer than me, and were also involved closer to or in the project's original heyday. Of course, I really want feedback from all members of the WikiProject! New members too! Quite a few members have joined recently – please leave a comment with your opinion if you would like! As many opinions as possible on this would be great to reach a consensus. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I propose that we give this project a name, since "the WikiProject Amusement Parks refurb" is a mouthful. I suggest "Project Retrack", since this is a makeover of the project while keeping its strong existing foundations.

The goals of the project include:

• to attract and engage attract new members,
• to make it easier to navigate,
• to add and streamline resources to aid in editing,
• to encourage collaboration,
• to bring together our members,
• and ultimately, to better organize our effort to improve the quality of amusement park-related articles.

Per previous discussions, this process will include elements such as:

• a visual makeover of the project,
• better inviting, welcoming, and helping new editors,
• more effective collaboration projects to engage editors and improve articles,
• systems to recognize outstanding contributions from editors,
• revisiting guidelines,
• and improving resources.

Specific proposals are outlined below, but comments regarding the project's name or overall goals can go here. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the first priority should be seeing who is still active and who isn't, and sending out a message to every member could also be a good place to notify people of discussions about the project's future (like this one) and/or ways they can contribute. Of course, the main message that people need to mark themselves as active can't risk getting lost here.

Like the 2020 census, the best way to do this would be to mark everyone (maybe aside from members who have joined in the last couple months) as {{unknown}} and notify users to change their entry to {{active}}.

I think that this would also be a good time to allow people to opt in/out of receiving the newsletter if that is going forward – see below for more detail on this. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I love the idea of having a newsletter again! It would act as a way to promote projects within the WikiProject, engage members (in its creation and from promoting collaborations), and recognize editors who have made outstanding contributions to amusement park articles.

I have created a WIP first draft of a newsletter for 2026 quarter 1 here, and I'd love to have feedback on it. I also made a template for future issues here, if this goes forward. (Note that I have put users in nowiki tags to avoid sending notifications).

I think that, like the previous attempts at a newsletter, this should be sent out quarterly as it is frequent enough to be relevant, but infrequent enough that it is not too much work. The key thing to decide, I think, is delivery. I think it would make sense to put a notice box on people's user talk pages linking to the newsletter, like how WikiProject Military History does it (see User talk:Boneyard90 as an example). As far as I can tell, this is typically done by requesting a mass message at Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders.

The key thing to decide is whether members of the WikiProject should receive the newsletter by default and opt out by removing their name, or have to sign up and opt in by adding their name. The benefit of the former is that it would have a greater reach, as many opt-in newsletters for smaller WikiProjects like ours only have a small handful of members. The benefit of the latter is that only interested members will receive the newsletter.

Either way, I think that with the census message, members should be notified that they can add/remove their name from the list to subscribe/unsubscribe from the newsletter.

Alternatively, to solve the problem of low awareness, a column could be added to the participants table to indicate whether a member is interested in receiving the newsletter. This would make opting into and out of the newsletter straightforward and visible. The downside is that someone would have to transfer the data into a bot-readable list of users when the newsletter is sent out.

We have about a month until the end of quarter 1 2026, so it would be nice to figure this out before then so we can send out the newsletter on or around March 31.

Options to vote for:

1) All members receive newsletter by default and can opt out

OR

2) Members only receive newsletter if they sign up

and

YES/NO on 'should a column be added to the participants table'

Plighting Engineerd (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a conversation with Therguy10 over from my talk page. For anyone else reading, context from that conversation isn't required for this post. To Therguy: if you could read the above 2 sections about the census and the newsletter if you haven't already, that would be good context.

The key thing is that, if we follow the model of the previous census, members have 90 days to update their tag to 'active' in the participants list. The end of quarter 1 is in 36 days, so there isn't enough time to get everyone's input before sending it.

Personally, I now think the best course of action is to send out an independent census message first, then on March 31, we can send out an announcement of the newsletter along with the link to the first issue to all members. This would be like a normal newsletter notice, but with a special notice that it is the first issue and describing in detail that editors can unsubscribe from the newsletter, or change where it is delivered, on the mailing list. This would get awareness of the newsletter out while also giving editors an easy option to not get the newsletter. Then, when the census concludes, we'd remove inactive members from the mailing list.

If we take that route, the main question remaining is to do with when new members join. Maybe we could make a welcome template for the WikiProject, which is something I've wanted to do anyway, informing editors of how they can help, giving a general guide to the available resources, and saying they can always ask for help on the talk page, but then this welcome template could also include a note that a newsletter is sent out quarterly and that they can unsubscribe or change where it is delivered on the mailing list page? It could also link to the most recent issue to show them what it is like.

The above method optimizes for reach, which I think is ideal, since I see so many opt-in WikiProject newsletters where only 10 or so people have seen it and signed up. I don't want it to feel too spammy, so I want to make it easy for users to opt out, but I think sharing one issue of the newsletter first could make it more appealing (I feel like people might just see "newsletter" and not sign up unless they see what it's like? I'm not sure if that makes sense).

Those are my thoughts on the matter at the moment. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the above and the newsletter itself (outstanding work, by the way!) I have a couple notes.

First, I agree with your preferred method of “census first, newsletter second”. I do worry about the newcomer issue. I think it is absolutely vital that we don’t overburden the newcomers whilst also maintaining a welcoming environment. This type of openness even I struggled with when I first joined. But having an up and running newsletter than the newcomers can join once it starts stands out to me the most. But that’s just my opinion.

Secondly, and this is more of a question, do you want to display a sample newsletter (ex: the most recent one) somewhere on the main page so as to preview what it’s like? It may not even have to be the full newsletter. But we could have like a “want to read the rest? then sign up!” type thing implemented. (Less blunt, of course)

Would love some extra feedback here! Therguy10 (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To modernize the project, make it easier to navigate, and show the changes made, a makeover of the project's visuals has been proposed. I have made a draft of a remake for the main page, which also includes a new logo. This was discussed in the above thread and feedback was positive, so what I would love is some feedback from Gone, Astros, or Adog for such a major change. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with the discussion about the project's main page, I think the to-do list needs somewhat of an overhaul too, as it seems somewhat disorganized. Perhaps a dedicated page for article creation requests might help? Or would that just obscure them more so they certainly never get made? I'm not super sure what to do with this since I think the to-do list should be more approachable and organized, but I'm not entirely sure the best way to do that, so some ideas from others would be great. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably one of the biggest sections of the project, but luckily, I think a good portion of the work has already been done by Adog. There's lots of great content in their sandbox which I think should be implemented. I have found the perennial source list especially useful.

I think removing the "Article standards" and "Templates" tabs from the WikiProject menu and replacing them with a unified "Editor resources" tab that has standards/MOS for our articles, templates, research guide, perennial sources, notability guidelines, etc. in a centralized location would be valuable and could make it easier to access useful things.

I also think that replacing the big "article standards" page with individual manual of style pages for each article type would be useful, as Adog began to draft. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Closely linked to the previous, revising guidelines is also a key part of reorganizing the project.

There has previously been some discussion about retiring unnecessary infobox parameters, and it seems there is a general consensus for removing some parameters; discussion can continue here.

In terms of notability, there are quite a few articles which have no sources other than RCDB (and occasionally a YouTube POV), which do not make them notable. I think going through a list of those and either finding sources for them, or, if that is not possible, turning said articles into redirects would help cut down on this. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few subpages of this project that should either be updated or archived, and I would like some thoughts.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Need infoboxes hasn't been updated since 2015, but would be a valuable list to have, and a possible candidate for a drive in the future. Is there a way to get a new version of this list?
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Article Clean-Up has been abandoned and could maybe be archived somewhere
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/List of roller coasters by RCDB ID – for this one, I just want to ask more experienced editors what the function of the page is. I see that it has been somewhat kept up to date, but I am just honestly wondering what purpose it serves?

Plighting Engineerd (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are two pools which we are likely to be able to attract members from: Wikipedians (who aren't really amusement park enthusiasts), or amusement park enthusiasts (who aren't yet frequent Wikipedians). I'm assuming that if you're a Wikipedian and an enthusiast, you're probably already here – though, as always, if someone is making lots of contributions to amusement park articles and isn't part of the project yet, send them an invite!

Other Wikipedians are likely to be attracted by things like drives and (possibly) competitions, so I think that would be a good point of focus too. It would be great if we could appear on The Signpost's WikiProject report too since that would also give us more exposure.

I feel like there are a lot of enthusiasts who would make great Wikipedia editors, but aren't aware it's an option or have never had a reason to edit. This makes me wonder if there is anything we can do off of Wikipedia to spread awareness of the WikiProject and invite more people to edit. I'm just spitballing ideas here, but maybe there are some organizations we could work with to run edit-a-thons or something? Plighting Engineerd (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Though the census will help with this, having looked through some of the participants list, it's clear to me that we have a strong team of editors who are active on Wikipedia. However, it's a lot more quiet around here than I think it could be, and I think that with the right drives, collaborations, and other initiatives, we can really built a bit more of a community as well as really see some improvement across amusement park-related articles.

One short-term proposal that I would like feedback on (and have now just covered up with this giant wall of text) is the "50 years of Great America" collaboration project to work together and celebrate 50 years of the Great America parks by improving related articles. I think more frequent, shorter drives is probably the way to go. These can be promoted each quarter using the newsletter.

Two other ideas for drives are one for de-stubifying articles, or also for either finding sources for or deleting articles which are currently only sourced by RCDB. The latter is discussed more in the Revising guidelines (e.g. notability) section below.

I also wonder if we could periodically hold some kind of competition. I'm not sure how, or what the format would be, but I think it could be effective. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be a focus to make sure that members who make outstanding contributions to the project and to amusement park-related articles should be recognized. Shouting out people in the newsletter is one great way I can think of of doing this. Members could be nominated on the talk page and appear in the next quarter's newsletter.

Additionally, as was discussed in a previous discussion, the better use of barnstars would go a long way, and I think the creation of a more general "you made some great contributions to amusement parks" barnstar would be nice to be able to give out to people who have made miscellaneous contributions that have been of very high quality. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the project isn't big enough to have separate drives in each task force, and I feel like their pages don't get much traffic or discussion. For example, the Six Flags task force page has received 17 pageviews in the last month – not that there's really much to see. Task forces are useful to calculate what percentage of a chain's articles are of a certain class, but I feel they have not seen much use recently (or really ever?). I don't know what the right course of action is, but I think consolidating their to-do lists onto a page with subsections could help. I'd love to have feedback from some other editors. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With the merger with Six Flags, the Cedar Fair task force probably has to go. Thanks to GoneIn60 for removing the column from the participants page. At some point, I think we should to remove that parameter from the talk page banner for related articles and migrate them over to the Six Flags one. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I have right now. Please put your thoughts below each section! Also, if anyone has any other suggestions, feel free to make a new section! Plighting Engineerd (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]