Talk:Luna Park Sydney

Hopeful expansion and citation

Hopefully over the next few weeks I will be able to get my hands on the information needed to properly tune up this article. I'm just going to make a few things clear before I start, in the sense of fair play.

1. Declared Interest: I am an employee at Luna Park Sydney, as an entry-level 'rides-monkey'. I will try and keep it NPOV, but I make absolutely no guarantees.
2. Planned sources: The major source will be a large, detailed book on the history of Luna Park Sydney, on sale in the giftshop. I plan to back this up with information sourced from the historical indoctrination in my training manual, and brief information on specific sections of the park provided on "historical information boards" located throughout the park (How the frak am I going to cite these?)
3. Images: I may take a small series of images displaying different sections of the park, although I will have to talk to my bosses. Use on Wikipedia may qualify as fair use under Luna Park's photography policy, but better safe than sorry.
4. Planned expansion:
   • Flesh out the History section. A hell of a lot happened between 1979 and 2004, which could probably be better detailed than the current "opened and closed several times." line that makes up the entirety of these 25 years. Done. -- Saberwyn 09:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Provide a list of the current rides, hopefully with wikilinks out to articles on each ride's type, and a little history if present and relevant. Done. -- Saberwyn 09:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Write a section on the two Big Dipper rollercoasters, (at least the second of) which has seen a fair deal of controversy. I might even make this into an article, if I find enough information. Done. See Big Dipper (Australian roller coaster). -- Saberwyn 09:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That's my plan and declarations, in black and white. Any comments or issues, either put them here, or on my talk page. -- Saberwyn 10:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Now what? -- Saberwyn 09:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks really good! It's a huge improvement - well done!

Re "Now what?": Main thing that comes to mind maybe a few pictures? E.g. beg/borrow a digital camera, take pictures of each of the rides, and show them in a <gallery> somewhere in the article? -- All the best, Nickj (t) 03:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Once a few odds and ends come together, I was going to get a small selection of piccies showing the Park layout (Face, Midway, Coney, Maloneys) and try to use more specific pictures for articles on the ride's type (ie Rotor (ride) and Wild Mouse roller coaster), wikilinking from the caption back here. -- Saberwyn 08:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A great-looking article. Well done! Jeendan 05:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Piccies

I've added a few here, and added a few more to articles on the ride types featured here (Rotor (ride) and Wild Mouse roller coaster at this point in time.

I plan to get an updated shot of the Face in the near future: they've made some temporary changes for the "Lunar Space Park" school-holiday carnival, as soon as the Face goes back to normal I'll go get snappy.

Is there anything anyone else wants (Historical pictures are going to be a royal arse to find, prepare, and include, but they can be tracked down by people not working at the Park with only a little effort) -- Saberwyn 13:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What is this ride called?

Hi, Can I please ask what this ride / game is called - the one shown in the foreground in this picture:

thumb|left|220px

The sign says "The wheel of joy", but it's a bit of a lame name, so hopefully that's not its real name.

It used to be called "King of the Castle" in the 1970's and early 1980's.

Whatever it is, it's tonnes of fun, and probably my favourite ride - just get on it with between 6 and 10 highly-competitive adult friends, and shove each other like all hell to be the last one left still on the spinning disc! ;-) -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

its called the joy wheel

Possible confusion

Harbourside Amusement Park opened in April 1982 (the change in name caused by a dispute between the current and previous owners, preventing use of the Luna Park name). The park ran until 1988. During this six year period, the Face was removed from the entry gates[...]

I read this to mean that the face was absent from 1982 to 1988, which surely isn't the case (or could my memories of at least a hundred visits to Luna Park during that period be so inaccurate? maybe!). Does anyone recall more specifically when the face was taken down, and for how long? Andoka 18:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've gone back over my sources, and yes, it was just a bad read. The line now reads "the Face was removed from the entry gates on two occasions..." Unfortunately, I don't have the specifics as to when. -- saberwyn 23:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes a lot more sense. One other thing that seem strange to me is the reference to the name Harbourside Amusement Park. Looking on the timeline at Luna Park's website, they do indeed say that was the name of the park from 82-88. What was the extent of the use of that name? The sign out the front said Luna Park, [hhttp://static.flickr.com/66/204614150_5155b6a06e_m.jpg this image] shows the scary 1980s face with Luna Park above it, and it was popularly known and referred to as Luna Park. The only online reference to the Harbourside name I can find is on that timeline. Was it only a business name, and not a trading name as such? The prize tickets awarded for throuing balls in the clown heads did say Harbourside Amusement, however. Does anyone have an reliable independent source to show that the park traded as Harbourside, or conversely advertised at the time as Luna Park? I'm looking but so far coming up empty. The official party line just seems misleading in this case. Andoka 11:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the official party line is all I have, Sorry. -- saberwyn 10:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You will find that period is not really mentioned in the history of Luna Park, a lot of contravesry about who was involved...etc and the fallout of the Ghost Train incident made a lot of people angry about the park re-opening. --Mikecraig 22:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghost Train

Considering the amount of material on the Ghost Train, particularly since the Saffron announcement, would it be worth splitting it out into an individual article... ie Ghost Train (Luna Park Sydney)?? -- saberwyn 06:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm interesting one...it is a "notable" event/tragedy. --Mikecraig 22:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Seven people killed, park shut down immediately for several years, an inconclusive coronial inquiry, a Government inquiry into the coronial inquiry, hoohah over the memorial of the event, and in recent weeks the "revalation" that the mob did it... and all sourced. Can't see this faulting WP:N, and would serve well as a split-out subarticle, with the added advantage of tidying up the section the material is crrently contained in. -- saberwyn 05:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

FAC nomination

The article has been nominated for FAC by an IP address, who due to technical limitations is unable to proceed further with the process. I have attempted to contact the user responsible in order to find out what is going on, and will delete the FAC tag if there is no reply by Thursday 17 January. -- saberwyn 12:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks BuddingJournalist. -- saberwyn 08:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Face photos

I've received a comment on my user page regarding the location of images of the previous faces: this is something that should be looked into in regards to expansion of the article. Any comments or suggestions on where such images may be legally (and preferrably freely) acquired from? -- saberwyn 03:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for {{citation needed}} at Number 96 and other television appearances.

The Have Phaser, Will Travel blog post has been removed as a source for information relating to Luna Park's appearance in an episode of Number 96. There are two reasons for this:

1. The blog does not apepar to meet the Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources or the policy on verifiability, specifically in relation to self-published sources. As a personal weblog, it does not go through an independant editorial or fact-checking process, and there is no professional accountability attached to the reliability of the information contained.
2. The creation of the blog post is circular in nature: it was created for the specific purpose of providing a citation for the information: A little like saying "The information is right. Trust me because I know."

Although I have know knowledge of the show, I do not question that the information is correct. We just need to find a way to prove it other than saying to people "Sit down and watch it". I am sure that there are sources out there to prove that this information is correct; reviews of the relevant episode or DVD release, interviews of the cast, a published book, guide, or almanac on the series, trade publications or local newspapers noting the filming, etc; just because people haven't found it yet isn't to say that it is wrong. However, creating a blog entry for the sole purpose of proving the point is not the way to go. -- saberwyn 06:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, my sincere apologies, Saberwyn. I thought I was doing a useful thing. I was the person concerned who added the original piece (but certainly not anonymously, as far as i knew - although you've now delated my real name from my footnotes). I originally added the material many months ago and, because I wasn't able to create a footnote properly at the time, I added my source (ie. the DVD set, with its full publication details) into my text segment. Yesterday I saw that my entry had been tagged "citation needed", but so too had the title of the DVD. (So how does one cite a DVD? A link to the publisher wouldn't confirm that Luna Park footage was in it; you still have to see the DVD footage to confirm the information.) I didn't link Wikipedia to the Youtube footage (linked on my blog, though) because I figured someone had put that on Youtube (from the DVD) without copyright permission. Also, I'm saddened to realise that blogs are not acceptable for sourcing information. (I've had numerous occasions where other Wikipedia editors have linked to my blog entries, on a range of media topics, and usually without my permission. Should I now go and remove all these citations too?) I run the online official "Number 96" home page (since 1996, recognised as a socially significant website by the Pandora Archive of the National Library - but then, it doesn't get independent review process either.) It runs with full permission of the show's production house, but I've run out of room on my webspace, so use my blog to create updates. Are you saying that if the information on this 1976 television appearance of "Number 96" characters at Luna Park was on my website, instead of my blog, that it would be acceptable? I have my unpublished book manuscript on "Number 96"; what a shame it was eventually rejected by publishers in the 90s, because then I could have referenced that. Therin of Andor (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that your intentions are honourable, but they're just not comaptible with current Wikipedia policy. To be honest, I don't know all the answers. For providing a citation for the DVD, you could use the {{cite video}} template or possibly the {{Cite DVD-notes}} template if the case or insert booklet mentions filming at the park. I would still be iffy about using a personal website as a source, but other users may think otherwise. -- saberwyn 21:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"500 places to see before they dissapear"

Over the past week, there's been a fair bit of media hoo-hah over the release of a book titled Frommer's 500 places to see before they disappear. One of the 21 Australian places listed is Luna Park Sydney, so it might be worth someone getting hold of the book and seeing if there is any useful content. -- saberwyn 04:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I recently added {{More footnotes}} maintenance template to this article, however it was recently removed. I have again restored it based on the following reasoning. The main reason why I added this template was the most of the 16 items listed in the References section relate to small items within the article and should feature in-text citations so that it is easy to identify what is being verified. The only item that should remain separate from <ref> tags is the full citation for "Marshall, Sam (2005)" as that is cited throughout with reference to the particular pages. I just thought I'd make it clear that I have no problems whatsoever about the Citations section only the References section. Hopefully this clear my intentions up a little. Themeparkgc  Talk  08:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Something like this? I think the "Citiations" section looks unbalanced, but we'll see how this goes. -- saberwyn 02:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's addressed my concern and I have removed the template. Thanks Themeparkgc  Talk  02:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

And it's dumb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.75.221 (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Luna Park: Darts venue?

Yesterday, Category:Darts venues was added to this article by Kpaspery (talk · contribs), because the Big Top was used for the 2013 Sydney Darts Masters. I removed the category here, because I did not think it was a relevant category for the subject. After a very brief talkpage conversation, they added a line to the amusement park's history about the darts event (presumabely separate to my rewrite of the Big Top section to indicate the variety of events it hosts, using the Darts Masters as an example), then readded the category.

I still think Category:Darts venues is an inappropriate category for this article. From Wikipedia:Categorization, "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having" (emphasis in original). Luna Park is an amusement park, and has been for its almost 80 years of existence. That is its defining feature, and what it should be categorised as. Luna Park has been a darts venue once. More specifically, a single building, which has designed as a multi-purpose venue, within an amusement park, capable of being configured within less than a day between events, hosting things as disparate as concerts, trade shows, conferences, weddings, tournaments, etc, was configured for a weekend to host a professional darts tournament. If the Big Top was in its own article, and if it was being used on a regular basis for darts tournaments, I could understand the category, but in the context of an 80-year-old amusement park, its not even a blip on the radar.

That said, I've already reverted once, so won't do so again. Does anyone else have an opinion? -- saberwyn 02:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luna Park Sydney. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131223075122/http://www.bigtopsydney.com/past.html to http://www.bigtopsydney.com/past.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)