Talk:Incidents at independent parks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Amusement Parks, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Amusement parks. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Knoebels info

section needs to be rewritten -- it's copyed directly from the rideaccidents website with no collaborating references. Anyone with additional info is encouraged to make those changes. SpikeJones 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? Any reason this can not be on the Knoebels page itself? Michael Greiner 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it needs to be rewritten *anyway* as it's currently a copyedit from the Ride Accidents website. As for why it needs to be rewritten in general, it's because the Ride Accidents website is not an accurate reference (yes, it *should* be in theory, but we've been trying to use actual news articles for all the accident references instead). Besides, if we used Ride Accidents for references in all the ride accident articles, then the reference list would look pretty darn silly and we have to trust that *they* were correct in the first place. But I digress. The reason I pulled it from the Knoebels page itself is that this will consolidate the ride accidents in one place and provide a consistent style and resource for this type of material. Placing it willy-nilly (or placing copies) on each individual parks' pages could lead to bad/missing/inconsistant edits. Doing it this way is consistent with the other summary pages. SpikeJones 20:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
But the parks that will be on this page are/will not be related. This page for the uninformed reader would make them seem related. In my opinion, the incidents should be on each individual park page.Michael Greiner 03:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You're right - the parks on this page won't be related. They are "independently-owned parks", just as the title of the page says. This matches the related Incidents at Disney parks, Incidents at Busch parks, etc articles for companies that own multiple parks, and this page is an extended companion to them. The idea, as mentioned above, is to have a single set of "Incidents at..." pages devoted to this material so the uninformed reader doesn't have to sift through all the individual park pages to find this information. (an aside -- please don't restructure the conversation when adding your comment to the existing topic; just add to the bottom of the specific topic you're commenting on. Otherwise it makes it hard to follow along. thx)SpikeJones 03:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but my original comment was a separate topic that you removed in your first response. All I did was restructure my comment the way I meant it to be. You were the one who changed the structure. Michael Greiner 19:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The info was pulled directly from the Knoebels page, so my statement of "needs to be rewritten anyway" along with your question of "why is it here instead of there" can certainly be understood as being related. Bygones. Was your question answered? SpikeJones 20:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why

Why have these been removed from individual park articles and placed here? The most appropriate place is in the articles for the individual parks, with only summaries or major, major cases here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it was making the park pages (in some cases) unbearably long; it provides a single resource for incident information instead of having to go all over WP for research; it provides a standard format/style/voice for all incidents; it forces all listed incidents to have proper citations; it's easier to monitor incidents on 5 pages than it is to watch every individual park page waiting for something to happen. SpikeJones 15:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I suspect you're putting your own concerns about the general functionality of an encyclopedia. Information regarding amusement parks should primarily be found in the park articles, and this should only be a list of incidents. Jpatokal 15:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Indiana Fun Park

Some issues with the entry: (a) it needs to be rewritten -- both here and on the OIFP page -- as the text was copied verbatim from the Emily webpage as well as the Lost Indiana web page. (b) while I would prefer to use the Emily webpage as the reference over the Lost Indiana webpage regarding info on the accident, we must have an unbiased, 3rd party news article about the incident as well. The Lost Indiana site should be linked from the OIFP page, not here. And finally, (c) we need clarification on the park's ownership and timelines so we know whether this info should be on this page or if it should be on the SF page. Why? because when SF purchased the park, the incident info would have appeared on that page. IF the park ceased to exist when SF sold the park afterwards, then the info would stay on the SF page, as SF was the last park owner. IF the park continued to operate under private ownership for a while before the park ceased to exist, then the incident info can stay here. Can anyone confirm the specifics, please? SpikeJones 05:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exploland/U.S

The intro states the article refers to U.S. parks, but Expoland is in Japan. One of them needs to go. I don't see any reason why the article should be U.S. only. 21:18, 14 August 2007 Jamo777

Fair enough -- the main reason was that there haven't been enough incidents documented here... yet... to warrant making a "Japan" or "Asia"-specific page. SpikeJones 03:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] playland WHIP information requested

As someone continues to remove the uncited WHIP info, all we need to do is find the references used in this article about the Mind Scrambler accident to see where they got the information about the Whip death. Hence, the citation needed tag in the article. Anyone? SpikeJones 04:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)