Talk:Oakwood Theme Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is part of WikiProject UK Theme Parks, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to theme parks in the United Kingdom. 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.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please improve this article if you can. (September 2007)


Contents

[edit] Hydro

UPDATE* - The ride has now been fitted with extra restraints and a new audio system which clearly says: Please fasten your seatbelts and WAIT for a ride operative to lower your shoulder restraint.

Can someone please explain why the above addition was made to the Hydro section of the article? One of the very first things the article states is that there is now a more secure restraint system in operation. I can hardly see how this qualifies as an "*update". I expect someone from the park may have written this in. However as a point of information its serves no real purpose.

[edit] Accidents

OK, so information about the accident needs to be included, but I don't think it should be put before almost everything else. Lightwater Valley, Flamingo Land Theme Park and Zoo, and Six Flags Great Adventure, as well as the (poor) Lake Compounce article, all mention their respective accidents after discussing the park itself and what it actually consists of. Six Flags Over Texas, however, mentions its accidents at the end of its History section, before its rides, but of the sample of theme park articles that I've looked at, all others mention them later on. Furthermore, all of the above call them "accidents", which is, by and large, what they were.

I'm more than happy to MOVE the incident info over to the Incidents at European parks page, as has been done for most other amusement park accident info. (yes, there would still be a mention here, but the bulk of the content... and references... would be on the Incidents page. Objections? Comments? SpikeJones 02:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact there's an ongoing HSE case against the company because of the company's negligence (that resulted in the death of a girl) I would say was relevant to the main page. It's not history in the sense of it not being something that has concluded. I agree that moving the bulk of the info to Incidents at European parks may be a sensible one for the sake of consistency however. I'll try and bulk out the section with more referenced information. User Robjames18 butchered what was a well written section (although it was slightly lacking in references) with poorly written gibberish, I'm looking to repair some of the damage and update the information.--Nexxxeh (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The question to ask is whether the situation warrants anything significantly larger than what is already written. The castle fire at Great Adventure had so much controversy and was really a big deal at the time in the industry that the bulk of the information appears in its own article. Is there really more to what's going on beyond what we have? As long as the references are there, anyone who needs the significant detail could always click through to get it. The fact that it is an ongoing case doesn't warrant anything in-and-of itself. SpikeJones (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the original writeup (my wiki-fu is too poor to figure out who wrote it) that can be seen on the 06:05, 30 January 2008 version contains vastly more information that is, for the most part, relevant to the company and the park as a whole, such as the impact it's had on business, how it appears they cut back on safety for profit reasons and their staff training was woefully lacking. It's just the author didn't put in the references, but I've found most of the references to put in. The stuff about the accident itself can stay in the accident page, but I think the company being prosecuted for endagering their customers is something that should be on the main page.--Nexxxeh (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Be very careful with your editing. You say I think the company being prosecuted for endagering their customers is something that should be on the main page, but this could be interpreted as having bias and not maintain the neutrality that articles require. The impact on business or a statement that safety cutbacks were done for profit reasons MUST be cited from reliable/verifiable sources specifically or else those statements will be removed. Keep WP:NPOV in mind with what you add. SpikeJones (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bluestone

Should something be mentioned about this?

  • What is Bluestone? --Aled D 13:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Park Development

It would be hugely appreciated if someone could come forward with a comprehensive list of Oakwood's development since it opened in 1987. I have tried my best with the list which I believe is 100% accurate from 1994 onwards, although I am a little more uncertain as to whether the rides prior to 1994 are so accurate (they are possibly out by a year or so). No one seems to have any information on Oakwood’s very early development (for example, when was the Pirate Ship installed?). Oakwood themselves are less than helpful as they make no effort to disseminate information about the park's history.

  • I have also spent some time looking into this but information is less than easy to come-by, I suggest possibly contacting the park management and the local press. --Aled D 13:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

If someone could upload a few more photos for the relevant sections- particularly the Hydro accident- that would also enhance the article a lot. The picture of the police at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3635619.stm]] captures this story very well. The picture of the ambulance at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3630577.stm even more so. With reference to the last one I have given a lot of thought as to whether this would be in good taste. However it is in the public domain and on the BBC news website.


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.121.65 (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Drop in visitor numbers

In the last paragraph under the heading of 'Hydro accident' there is a sentence claiming Oakwood has suffered a 'significant' drop in visitor numbers. Is anyone able to provide a source for this statement? It is a rather sweeping statement which deserves a citation to be valid. If no citation is found I feel it should be edited or removed. 81.106.139.53 15:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The drop in visitor numbers is very well documented indeed, prompting the Welsh Tourist Board to give Oakwood a grant for targeted leafleting in south Wales. Paddy McNamara (managing director) also commented in the local press on this issue for Oakwood stating that "when Oakwood was hurting Pembrokeshire hurts". I shall try to see if there is archive information for a citation.

[edit] Ride descriptions

The ride descriptions desperately need updating. They are badly written. I don't know enough about the rides. Can anyone help?Jamesb1 23:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed speculation and discussion of speculation - completely uncited

I've removed the future rides section, it contained near-pure speculation with not a single citation. Please feel free to add information back if it's information about Oakwood that is verifiable, but the article desperately needs cleanup and removing unsourced information such as this, is I feel, the only way to really get started on it. --ericthefish 16:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that it is standard practice amongst enthusiasts of theme parks (who I would reckon are responsible for up to 90% of the material in this article) to speculate to a degree as to future development (although this speculation is often grounded on factual assessments of such things as past indicators and current market trends).

Thus I would disagree with the above assessment. In particular it is an observed fact that the park's development operates on a three year cycle, (although this is not an officially articulated policy) and this cannot reasonably be defined as speculative in nature. Finally there is nothing necessarily wrong in reporting speculation so long as one does not add to it.

JDW 15/11/07

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)