Talk:Seabreeze Amusement Park
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm curious.. I don't want this page to be deleted, in fact I think it's too small. But I want to know, if, when I next went to the park, I took the time to find out all I could about the history of Seabreeze, via the signs posted around the park at various places, would that be considered original research since I can't really cite the signs? I'm assuming I understand the definition of original research, and that asking historians and people who work there about Seabreeze would /definately/ be original research.. -- Zalethon (Talk) 18:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- It would definitely not be original research. In fact, even an interview would probably not strictly be original research, as long as the interview was to glean information about the park (rather than about the interviewee). Rather, the stumbling block is verifiability. From WP:OR: "'No Original Research' ... does, however, prohibit expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable." Personal interviews are absolutely not verifiable. However, the various signs around the park, as you mention, may or may not qualify as reliable sources. I would ask in a more visible location than this, perhaps Wikipedia talk:Verifiability or Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Powers T 00:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comment of no value
Not for nothing about this article, but just a comment ... the loss of PTC 36 was one of the saddest days for Rochester. I spent plenty of days as a kid both at Roseland Park in Canandaigua and a Seabreeze (and at least one day at Olympic Park -- anyone remember that one?), but what I remember best about Seabreeze was always the carousel. Such a shame, even 12+ years later. --CPAScott 20:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, sad. :( I'm a Seabreeze FREAK (look at my username) who lives in SD now. Long live Seabreeze!! WhirlWindSpin 22:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
