Talk:Luna Park Sydney

message: 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)
thread_title:  Piccies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What is this ride called? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Well, the official party line is all I have, Sorry. -- saberwyn 10:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Possible confusion  

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  FAC nomination 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Face photos 

message: 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:
#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.
#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)
replies: text: 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  template or possibly the  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)
thread_title:  Reasons for {{tl|citation needed}} at ''Number 96'' and other television appearances. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "500 places to see before they dissapear" 

message: I recently added  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)
replies: text: Something like this? I think the "Citiations" section looks unbalanced, but we'll see how this goes. -- saberwyn 02:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's addressed my concern and I have removed the template. Thanks Themeparkgc  Talk  02:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Yesterday, :Category:Darts venues was added to this article by , 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)
thread_title:  Luna Park: Darts venue? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified