Talk:Incidents at Cedar Fair 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] Broken links

The two links to news reports about the Son of Beast accidents both link to pages that no longer exist. Does anyone have some better links? Shaz91 13:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this page really necessary, why can't it just be included in the specific park's own page? (This unsigned comment was written by 65.188.197.165 on 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Because incidents stretch out pages for each individual park tremendously. This is a companion page to the Incidents at Disney parks, Incidents at Six Flags parks, and Incidents at Busch parks pages, and gives researchers a single consolidated source of related information. It'll fill up over time. SpikeJones 21:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paramount parks?!?

Why is King's Island listed here? That's a Paramount owned Park! 208.252.190.184 12:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Because Cedar Fair purchased the Paramount chain last year. Check that the "more parks" link on the King's Island website clicks over to this link to verify for yourself: http://www.cedarfair.com [1] SpikeJones 13:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Cedar Fair purchased Kings Island on June 30 of this year: Paramount's Kings Island#New ownership. The Son of Beast incident was on July 9th, less than two weeks later. It just seems odd to list it as a "Cedar Fair incident" since they had little to do with maintenance of the ride by that point. --Birdhombre 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
When Cedar Fair purchased the Paramount parks, they purchased all associated liabilities and ownership of the historical events that happened at those parks... unless Paramount Parks declared bankruptcy before the sale, etc (disclaimer: i am not a lawyer, but the historical event portion still holds). In any case, an example: IF Six Flags were to purchase Cedar Fair, then this page would be merged into the Incidents at Six Flags parks page. SpikeJones 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, except you can't "purchase" history. Just because Cedar Fair purchased the property and whatever financial liabilities, does not make them responsible for incidents that happened before the purchase was made. That would be like Paramount buying Cedar Point, then claiming Paramount as a company built the world's tallest roller coaster in 2003. Sure, they would own Top Thrill Dragster at that point, but they can't then claim ownership of the history of the ride prior to their ownership. 216.137.135.78 13:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Cedar Fair purchased the park's history when they purchased the parks. Paramount parks are now Cedar Fair parks, therefore information on those parks appear here instead of being scattered on separate pages. SpikeJones 13:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree with this reasoning. Cedar Fair has an exemplary safety record in the industry and an incident that occurred before they owned a park shouldn't be on one of these pages. Further, the existing corporate structures of many of these parks were dissolved and these are all essentially asset sales. If you were going to apply the "history purchase" logic to a sale of assets you could argue that someone who bought a used car was now in effect the person who had put the past mileage on it. It doesn't make any sense. Crowdes 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is passing judgement about Cedar Fair's culpability in any of the listed incidents beyond a simple statement of facts. The incidents occurred at the specific park at the specific date listed. The specific park is currently a Cedar Fair park. Therefore, the incident is then listed on the Cedar Fair page. Similarly, when Six Flags sold Elitch Gardens and other SF parks to PARC Management, those parks' entries got placed on that incidents page. Separating out events that occurred at Elitch Gardens (Six Flags era) vs Elitch Gardens (PARC Management era) is confusing to the enduser and a potential duplication of effort if someone is not aware of the page structure when editing. SpikeJones 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
To elaborate on your car mileage analogy, the new owner may not have placed the mileage on the car themselves, but the mileage still exists (along with the associated wear-and-tear to the vehicle itself...) and if it is an infamous vehicle of any sort, then you are now the go-to guy for any history that the car had. Cedar Fair may not have been involved in any way with some of those incidents, but their PR department still has to deal with it. SpikeJones 19:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a hypothetical to complicate things... What would happen in the case of Sea World of Ohio, which no longer exists? It was incorporated into Six Flags, then became part of Geauga Lake, but what used to be Sea World (dolphin tanks, whale shows, etc.) was removed and is now a water park. So while Cedar Fair inherited the former Sea World (eventually), the only relationship they have is that they existed on the same parcel of land. I understand what you're saying: basically, the park itself does not shed its history under new ownership; but from the owner's point of view, their company does not gain a new company history with said park. Maybe it would be helpful to include in each incident report what the park was actually called at the time the event occurred? (This doesn't really change my example above from last year, with Son of Beast, since Cedar Fair did own Kings Island at that point.) --Birdhombre 03:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
You bring up a reasonable hypothetical discussion point. Incidents that occurred at Sea World Ohio would initially exist as "Sea World Ohio" on the SF page. If Cedar Fair did not purchase "Sea World Ohio" because SWO completely ceased to exist under SF's reign then the SWO entry stays with SF... but items that occur at the SF-named waterpark that transferred over to Cedar Fair would move to the Cedar Fair page. Cedar Fair didn't purchase SWO, they purchased the water park -- treat those entities as two completely different parks. SpikeJones 03:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems like it would be much clearer to place a ride incident on the main page for each ride, noting its ownership at the time. Under the current set up, every time a park is sold the incident pages are going to have to be updated. And what would happen to a park selling a ride to another park, perhaps even never operating it on its own? In a case like that the only way I see the current structure working would be to fracture the page into pieces. At the very least, if no other change is made then I think it's critical to point out that these incidents happened before Cedar Fair owned the park, otherwise it would be far too easy for someone to assume otherwise and wrongly impugn Cedar Fair's safety record. Crowdes 00:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Placing incidents on each ride's page is problematic as not every ride that has had an incident has a WP page (or is necessarily notable enough to warrant an individual page). As for "every time a park is sold...", that's not an issue as it's not as if parks are sold every day and we deal with those types of changes on WP all the time. Regarding your comment about selling the ride -- the incident stays with the park, not with the ride, as the incident happened at a particular park. Regarding your comment about a ride operated by someone other than the park (such as this past weekend's Playland incident as the ride was contracted from an outside firm), the incident stays with the park as well. I recognize your point regarding somebody assuming that Cedar Fair was directly involved with ALL incidents that are listed (as opposed to only those that have happened directly under Cedar Fair's watchful eye), but that's why we are diligent about listing all references and dates for the enduser to see the details for themselves (we're only writing summaries here). Anybody doing proper research should reference the park's individual pages and will see that the parks had multiple owners over different time periods. That type of information is more appropriate for the parks' pages rather than here. SpikeJones 02:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timber Wolf

Should it be noted that the accident occured under the Hunt midwest ownership. Also I will also like to have another accident added to the this coaster. A think it occured in 1990 where the station brakes failed and two trains hit each other in the station. Natural number is e 18:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I found this [2] but could the source be accptable. I'm going to check the kansas city newspaper Natural number is e 18:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That is not a valid source if there was an accident in 1990. All it does is support the statement of someone thinking there was an accident, but it has no 3rd-party verifiable (preferably in the news) info.SpikeJones 20:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thats what I thought. I know this occured just can't find any proof Natural number is e 20:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This appears to be a relaibale source here. Go down to march 31. It appears the site is this college Capital University. I won't add any thing till I get the green light. Natural number is e 21:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Info on Capital U site still lacks reliable references. News articles are preferred over generic lists of coaster accidents that can't be confirmed.SpikeJones 03:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Found it "worlds%20of%20fun"%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(timber%20wolf%20"worlds%20of%20fun")&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no&s_trackval= Wichita Eagle. You will have to pay to read the full article but that should be enough to list the accident in my opinion. Natural number is e 16:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well thats missed up Natural number is e 16:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can isolate the Wichita Eagle link to just the abstract that contains the "35 INJURED AT WORLDS OF FUN" headline and opening paragraph (without the other news items), that would be best. When you make the citation, be sure to include original publication date, and indicate that the link is just an abstract (as one of the references on one of the other Incidents pages does). Thanks for doing the research.SpikeJones 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It is only a Wikipedia Guideline to avoid pay to view articles if possible. In this case here its probably not possible to get them unless you go to a library. Therefore these sources are published and can be viewed if someone wants to verify. Anyway the Wichita Eagle has 2 articles of this incident that I found searching their archive and Google. One is dated April 25th 1990 and is posted at [3] It mentions when the Timber Wolf Reopened from the Incident and what caused it. The other article is posted here at [4] and its the breaking story about 35 people being injured on Timber Wolf becasue of the accident and was posted the day after the incident, the injury count here may be vague because of the story was breaking then and errors do happen, I think the later article that states the rider injuries would be the count that should be posted in the article. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 04:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Another Article from the Denver Post Newspaper Dated in sept 6th 1996 states 48 injuries and also states the computer block system on the ride had its memory erased from a Lightning Strike near the end of the 1989 season. It seems to quote that one sorce above that seems to be unreliable in a Weekly World News style. I think I'll stick with the count of 35. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 05:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have added the 1990 section per the sources from the Wichita Eagle. If someone finds a free article that is reliable please post it here, otherwise this is all we have that was deem reliable for this incident. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 05:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The recent Great Barrier Reef drowning

Park Officials said that there were six lifeguards in the wave pool,but the victims mother said that it was only four lifeguards in the pool.Well,on to my point... An article said that the 4-Year old boy was left unattendent in 2-feet deep,how the hell can nobody see that boy,well I mmaybe have an explanation!He was just a small boy,his older sister said he had been underwater a long time,of course the lifeguards couldn`t see him in that far from the pool,they can``t see the boy below the surface!The fault was actually the mother herself!She shouldn`t have left the boy in 2-feet deep!Maybe the boy had come to a 3-feet deep so he couldn`t reach the surface becuse he couldn`t swim!And the mother was just sitting there without watching him,how stupid could she be?!Silverpark 11:30 15 July 2007 (UTC)

WP is not a place for commentary, opinion, finger-pointing, or conjecture. The summary in the article merely states the known facts of the situation. If you have concerns about this specific incident, I'm sure there are websites where such conversations are talking place. SpikeJones 14:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incidents at Cedar Fair Parks

Why is the incidents at "before Paramount Parks" that occured before Cedar Fair buyed the parks listed in this article?Silverpark 11:30 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As stated here and in other discussion pages, it has to do with the fact that you can't separate an incident from a park's history, and since the park is currently owned by Cedar Fair, then incidents that occur at that park fall here. Anyone who contacts the park now for information relating to a previous incident will be put in contact with Cedar Fair PR or management. SpikeJones 15:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)