Template talk:Amusement park incidents

Placement of template

I am beginning this discussion to discuss what kinds of articles this template is intended to be placed on. After it was placed on the article entitled Krug Park (Omaha), it was removed twice by an editor who asserted that "The template does not belong on every single article on an amusement park where someone was hurt or killed."[1] I'm disinterested in "every single article on an amusement park where someone was hurt or killed"; I am interested in allowing readers to easily navigate to related articles. I placed a link to the general article[2]; however, I'm dissatisfied that's not as connective as using the template.

I would like to hear other editors' thoughts, particularly the template creator or others who've used it a lot. • Freechildtalk 01:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think how the article currently has it (i.e. with {{see also|Amusement park accidents}}) is sufficient. I don't think this navbox should be transcluded onto more pages than that which are currently listed as links. I do however feel Amusement park accidents should be expanded to provide better links off to the pages linked in this template. Themeparkgc  Talk  04:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thought process is that when a specific ride is involved in a noteworthy accident (thereby warrenting inclusion onto one of the myriad of Amusement Park Accident summary articles) that including the template helps the reader and further navigation for more information. Excluding it could be seen as censorship by some if they can't provide a reasonable answer as to why it shouldn't be included. Just because person A isn't interested in following a trail of links regarding where/how park injuries occured doesn't mean person B isn't as well. SpikeJones (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a navbox. It is not relevant on the articles about the theme parks, if it just so happens that there was a death or an injury at that theme park on one of its rides. The template only lists the articles that have the incidents. Why should it be placed on articles where the incidents took place? I also have an issue with listing these things on Wikipedia. The Six Flags Great Adventure Haunted House fire is a notable incident. The Tilikum trainer death is a notable incident. However, the fact that some people died as a result of existing conditions while they just happened to be riding It's a Small World or Space Mountain is not notable, and the whole group of articles needs to be scaled down.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comments about the subject matter seem to take the discussion in a different path. Every incident is properly cited via independent, reputable 3rd party sources and as such qualify for encyclopedic mention on said incident summary pages. Let's go back to your first statement, "This is a navbox; it is not relevant on the articles about theme parks". I would like you to expand on this for us so we can discuss it further. If a link from a park article where an accident occured to other similar articles isn't appropriate on an article about theme parks, then why not? SpikeJones (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because the incidents exist and are mentioned in reliable 3rd party sources does not mean that they are encyclopedic topics. But I digress. Placing this template onto articles like Disney World or Six Flags Great Adventure or on what ever ride the incident occurred with is not a good use of this template, because there is nothing in the navbox that directly relates to that particular page. You can have {{see also|Incidents at foobar}} at the head of that section, but having the template on that page is not appropriate.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Based upon what SpikeJones has said, would it be right to include {{Roller coaster}} on all roller coaster articles? I wouldn't think so. I feel the current usage of the template is sufficient (i.e. on only those articles that are actually linked). I do agree with Ryulong, the number of incidents could be cut down, but that is a whole other discussion. Themeparkgc  Talk  08:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to state that the current usage of the template is only that way because I removed it from any non "Accidents at [insert theme park" article. It was on several, but I removed them all. Freechild's discovery of the removal at Krug Park (Omaha) is the only one that was discovered.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Referring to a widespread edit such as this as being discovered doesn't demonstrate the value of cooperation or assume the best of my editing. • Freechildtalk 15:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

After doing a bit of digging, it appears a lot (if not all) of the template's transclusions on the other articles (i.e. those that you have since reverted) was done just over a year ago by 94.2.209.38 (talk · contribs). Themeparkgc  Talk  09:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(Outdent) It is certainly possible that many of the transclusions were from incidents that were originally on the incidents summary pages and have since been removed during a cull that has been done over the past several months of the more banal items. That would make it look like the Accidents item was being included on more articles than seemingly necessary. Is your stance that you don't mind a SEE ALSO link on those pages, but that the nav template shouldn't be present? Question: how would removing the template affect the Amusement Park Accidents category which has served as a way to link easily to all the parks/attractions as necessary? I say that the removal of the template is a negative affect in this regard. SpikeJones (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The articles on the individual rides and/or the parks where incidents occurred are not proper inclusions in a category about the incidents themselves. That would like placing Six Flags Great Adventure into Category:Bumper cars just because they just happen to have bumper cars there.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your analogy, except that there never would be a Bumper Cars category (yes, I'm making an assumption about it's chances at CFD review). With regards to the individual ride articles -- if there is a noteworthy-enough addition for that ride to appear on the Accidents incidents page, then why wouldn't inclusion onto a category of all the rides where a notable accident occured be allowed as well? Not having it (and relying on the "see also" link by itself) seems to be a bit of censorship and purposefully minimizing cross-linking between related topics - in this case, the topic being "rides that have been involved with significant incidents". Could you explain further about how an article on the ride where an incident occured is not valid to have an incident category placed on said page?

Or, is it possible that you're concerned with the PARK articles being included in the category, but you're okay with the category being placed on the individual ride articles? If that's the case, then I could agree with you that "See Also" is appropriate and that the Accident category should be removed from the *PARK* articles.... but we need to go back through and add it back to the individual ride articles where they once were. SpikeJones (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Action Park

Where would the numerous accidents at Action Park go? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 20:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidents/Accidents

This template says Amusement park accidents but the incidents articles for example are Incidents at Cedar Fair parks. I think Incidents and Accidents should be consistent.--Astros4477 (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The template is named after the article of the same name so maybe it is best if you bring it up there. Themeparkgc  Talk  04:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Astros4477 (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible funky edit?

Please see the AFD discussion for "Incidents at Minnesota Park" please - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Incidents_at_Minnesota_Park#Incidents_at_Minnesota_Park SpikeJones (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)