Talk:List of incidents at independent amusement parks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Knoebels info[edit]

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)[reply]

Why? Any reason this can not be on the Knoebels page itself? Michael Greiner 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Why[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Old Indiana Fun Park[edit]

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)[reply]

Exploland/U.S[edit]

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)[reply]

playland WHIP information requested[edit]

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)[reply]

What is the significance of "independent" in the article name?[edit]

Do we have a parallel Incidents at state-owned parks? Also, there are other problems with the article name. "Incidents" surely should be "accidents", and "parks" should be "theme parks", as parks implies a place where you might sit on the grass and have a picnic, rather than a place with rollercoasters. --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what's the difference between this article and (the better-named) Amusement park accidents? --Dweller (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, incidents should be accidents. I brought this up a while ago somewhere and received no response. Also, parks should be amusement parks, not theme parks as you suggested. I don't really see a difference between the two articles so maybe they could be merged?--Astros4477 (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to believe that a page like this existed since 2007 without being renamed or deleted. Wow! I wholeheartedly agree with the above sentiment. Merging the two would be an option, but perhaps there's reason to propose that both be deleted altogether. Here's why... In articles about notable topics such as amusement parks or amusement rides, the accident could be listed there instead. It can be argued that a secondary article for listing everything is unnecessary and repetitive. In addition, the current articles are very much incomplete, and one is already quite lengthy. If it is decided to keep the list, then at some point the disadvantages that come with a lengthy article will outweigh its intended benefits. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the original question, I believe independent in this context is meaning that the parks are independent from the major companies such as Six Flags, Cedar Fair, Disney, SeaWorld, Universal etc, all of which have their own "Incidents at ______ parks" article. Something needs to be done about these articles because they are in pretty bad shape. I just don't know what should be done. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to follow most of these articles, if only to keep them above board and free of silly uncited additions, such as, "On July 5, 2012, I went to Hersheypark and stubbed my toe and was very upset". I would agree with a renaming of sorts, such as "Incidents at independent amusement parks", while leaving the others (like Incidents at Six Flags parks and Incidents at Cedar Fair parks) as they are, since they are pretty descriptive. I would be interested in hearing what your other concerns are, GC. --McDoobAU93 22:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In respect to the other part of the question, another consideration is changing the term "incident" to "accident". The latter is more descriptive while the former is more generic – an accident is a type of incident. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
McDoob, just some things that immediately come to mind:
  • Personally I've never been keen on the idea that all incidents are listed in these articles but not necessarily in the individual articles. When parks change ownership, the incidents move between the Incidents at ___ parks articles. Ideally, I would have the incidents listed on the park's page and a ride page if it has been created. I know the issue here is not giving undue weight to these particular issues on the wider scope of the park/ride article but isn't grouping all the incidents of a single chain giving undue weight? If someone wasn't to read the full list, they might be led to believe these types of incidents are common at the particular chain.
  • Also most of the articles are made up of small sections, each with a single bullet point. I can see this is useful when a ride has had a handful of incidents but for the majority which have only had one incident I think it is bad. I would either swap the 2nd level headings for bold text and have all incidents in a list for a particular park, or I would remove all the bullet points and have a single paragraph for each incident.
  • In amusement park accidents, there is way too much focus on statistics related to Florida. Not sure how many other places release statistics like this, but I am sure there must be something more which can be done to give it a worldwide view of the topic. This should be an expanded version of the well-written leads for the other articles.
Themeparkgc  Talk  23:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lagoon merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Incidents at Lagoon Amusement Park be merged into Incidents at independent amusement parks. It seems to belong here along with similar information. The Lagoon page is destined to stay short, and its content would fit better in the context of the larger article. Ntsimp (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible AFD?[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Incidents_at_Minnesota_Park#Incidents_at_Minnesota_Park for a possible article deletion and/or merge into this article. Thx. SpikeJones (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looked it up. This article is garbage and almost certainly a hoax. No such amusement park, no such ride. A fatal accident at a North American amusement park—even at a local county/state fair—generates tons of national media coverage; look at coverage for a non-lethal incident at Six Flags Magic Mountain in the past 12 hours for proof this article is bogus. Flagged it for speedy deletion. --McDoobAU93 13:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: It just got speedy-deleted. Move along, nothing more to see here. --McDoobAU93 15:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article rename?[edit]

There has been some contention over this name in the past, and based on recent incidents that have hit the news, I think the better name for this article should be Incidents at North American amusement parks. Since the major players (Disney, Universal, SeaWorld, Six Flags, Cedar Fair) have separate articles, we would need to include a redirect in the alphabetical listing to take them to the appropriate page. For example, here's where Six Flags would be located in this article under my proposal (wikification removed purely for illustrative purposes):

Siam Park (Thailand)

Main article: Siam Park City

Flume ride

  • On October 23, 2007, one woman was killed and five others injured when the ride vehicle fell 20 metres (66 ft) to the ground from the top of the lift hill. Park management said that there was a drop in electric power, causing a water pump to fail to control sufficient water level on the ride.

Water slide

  • On January 12, 2008, 28 children, ages 10 to 13, were injured when they fell two meters to the ground after the final sections of the corkscrew water slide collapsed.

Six Flags parks

Further information: Incidents at Six Flags parks

Splash Adventure

Main article: Splash Adventure
  • In 1999, when the park was called Visionland, five people were injured when a raft overturned.
  • In 2001 when the park was called Visionland, a boat filled with park employees overturned when the employees rocked the boat. No one was injured.
  • In August 2009, when the park was called Alabama Adventure, a family of three and one other park visitor were injured when the ride's boat capsized. Witnesses said that the family's boat hit an empty boat and was overturned. The family were underwater for approximately 20 seconds.
  • In June 2011, when the park was called Alabama Adventure, there was a fight that broke out between several youths and spread throughout the park. One guest described it as a borderline riot. The Bessemer Police were called to the park and no more guests were allowed into the park. It was blamed on a "$10 before 10AM" promotion the park ran.

Yes, in this case Siam Park would be removed since it's not in North America. This would probably call for an Incidents at Asian amusement parks article in the same vein. Thoughts? --McDoobAU93 13:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move, for the moment. However, there is a consensus that once the article has been split and the Asian and Australian incidents have found a new home (and also the European ones have been moved to the correct article), then there is a consensus the article should be moved. Ping me once that's happened and I'll move the page. Jenks24 (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Incidents at independent amusement parks → Incidents at North American amusement parks – Name is vague and does not properly limit the scope of the article. There is a similar article for Incidents at European amusement parks that cover parks not owned by major chains in Europe. This article should further include links to the separate Incidents summary articles for Six Flags, Disney Parks, Cedar Fair, etc. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC) -- McDoobAU93 13:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@McDoobAU93: Themeparkgc  Talk  21:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incidents at Asian amusement parks I would think ... --McDoobAU93 21:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I guess Luna Park Sydney would be a sole entry in an Australian, Australasian, or Oceanian article for the time being? Themeparkgc  Talk  22:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The source for the tidal force incident seem off[edit]

Is there any better source for it? Not to mention this is more recent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:146:4001:D594:D8A1:97CB:CD43:B0C3 (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Incidents at independent amusement parks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of incidents at independent amusement parks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of incidents at independent amusement parks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of incidents at independent amusement parks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not worth including[edit]

Houston Chronicle has compiled a list of recent injuries at Typhoon Texas waterpark, including this one: https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-TX-Waterpark-Injuries-13781040.php#photo-10393859

Ride/slide: Typhoon Location: Katy Texas Park: Typhoon Texas Waterpark Person: Female, age 38 Incident: While in the tube hit buttocks while going down the ride Injury: Buttocks, buttocks pain Note: No incident report made while on property - no notification of injury til 1 week later

Page for water parks?[edit]

I noticed a lot of water parks on this list like Kalahari, Schlitterbahn and Great Wolf Lodge- I think creating for purely water parks would be good, or merging these incidents for chain parks with the original page. Hybrid parks like Mt. Olympus could stay here since they have roller coasters. Eg224 (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the first description mentions anything is eligible from amusement parks to water parks, but still having the page titled with “amusement parks” makes me think it should be separate- plus this page has gotten pretty long. Eg224 (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_incidents_at_independent_amusement_parks&oldid=1195608191"