Talk:Haunted Castle (Six Flags Great Adventure)

message: It's been more than a week, and the consensus at the RSN discussion seems clear and unlikely to change at this point. There are a couple sources listed above we can use in its place, but some content in the Operation and C&H sections may not survive the switch. I'll take a closer look over the next few days and assist when I have time. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, looks like it was just archived. We can considered it closed at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: I had noticed that the article had a Class B rating in the WPAP banner at the top of the page, and I wondered how that happened considering the events here over the last few weeks. That is until I dug through the history and realized that the B was given unilatterally by the editor that put up the banner. Under the circumstances I believe the article should only be at Start. Any discussion?  — Myk Streja (when?) 18:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You're kidding.  Have you looked at any Start pages lately?  In the "C" to "B" range sounds right to me.  Oddjob84 (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps now wasn't the best time to bring up my concerns about the rating, but I found it while researching something else, and the class ratings are supposed to be earned during a peer review. Personally, I would go with C.  — Myk Streja (when?) 19:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is another policy I have researched.  However, most of the time, a single editor can do it "in good faith".  Sometimes the editor is supposed to be a member of the particular project, but then you run into these interesting things:  go to the project page, it's been inactive since 2009;  list your request for review, check back a month later, and find the list hasn't moved... in the last year;  list your request, and it's skipped over because the guys on the page aren't interested in your article.  I'm not making those up, they are all actual examples.  All of this begs the question "why is that banner on my page anyway?"  In these cases, I have reviewed the project's guidelines, and reviewed it myself, or deleted the banner altogether.  Oddjob84 (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   If you really want the article to be assessed, go here and add it to the list:  WP:WikiProject_Amusement_Parks/Assessment.  Oddjob84 (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Now probably is not a good time for that. If we survive the GAH reliable source discussion, I'll come back to it.  — Myk Streja (aack!) 15:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, anyone can assess a page regardless of what a WikiProject's guideline states. For articles an editor may have been heavily involved in creating or updating, he/she may opt to ask another editor in the project for a second set of eyes on the assessment. It's not a requirement, just a common courtesy, not to mention a good way to develop collaboration among the WikiProject's membership. Occasionally the problem, as pointed out above, is that some WikiProjects become inactive or hit a lull. In those cases, just rate the article on your own. Personally, I wouldn't have this one rated any higher than a C. For me, it's somewhere between Start and C, but C would likely be fine. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Gentlemen:  After looking at and reassessing this article on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Assessment quality scale, it occurred to me to look at the importance scale.  Here, I think, this article has been badly underrated.  It has had a profound impact on the industry, even today, 30+ years later.  Even the NFPA felt compelled to re-examine it in 2014.http://www.nfpa.org/news-and-research/publications/nfpa-journal/2014/may-june-2014/features/the-haunted-castle-revisited  Here are some of the changes made to the National Fire Codes because of it.http://www.nfpa.org/news-and-research/publications/nfpa-journal/2014/may-june-2014/features/the-haunted-castle-revisited/spooky-and-safe  The complete report can be downloaded free from the NFPA as Haunted Castle Investigation report.pdf.  Apparently even the plumbing industry is well aware of this incident.https://www.phcppros.com/articles/1954-amusement-park-fire-still-haunts-after-30-years
I would support a High on the importance scale, with the only thing lacking for a Top rating being International notability (which it may have, but I have not seen anything to prove it). Oddjob84 (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

text: I think it's Mid at best, but most likely Low. It lacks coverage in reliable sources (one of the reasons of what led to the RSN), and many experts in the field are not likely familiar. Attractions rarely achieve higher than Mid status, unless they were a crucial part of the industry, furthering its development in some way that makes it stand on its own. This attraction seems to be more closely tied to a single incident that has come and passed, and ongoing coverage is not something that is evident at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the circumstances, I can see this article having a Mid rating. I'm becoming inured to the fact that the source was denied, and I've started in on the article. (Just because others have denied it doesn't mean I agree, but I will abide by the consensus.) I did the easy stuff first because the information in Operation was mostly sourced by other references. I'll dig into the harder part soon. Renaming needs to wait for now. Someone getting bold will only force a reversion and an RM discussion.  — Myk Streja (aack!) 22:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I could live with a Mid, but I am going to make a case for High.  First, let's agree on a couple of terms.  We are not discussing anything but amusement parks, so equating this to 911 or the San Francisco Earthquake is not a consideration. Next, this is about a accident, disaster or other unfortunate incident.  We are not talking about which roller coaster is most notable.  I can guarantee you that there is not an amusement park operator who does not know about this incident, or who has not felt its aftermath.  I equally promise every fire marshal, code inspector and fire safety equipment installer knows about this, or at very least is aware the codes changed because of it.  I would also point out to you that hundreds of haunted houses went out of business in the 1980s as a result of this incident.  If you insist, I will provide some more references, but do start with this.http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most-shocking/10-deadliest-theme-park-accidents-of-all-time/ And this.http://listverse.com/2013/10/21/10-bloody-amusement-park-accidents/ And this, from England.http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/582025/FATAL-ATTRACTIONS-World-s-10-deadliest-theme-park-rides-Thorpe-Park-accident And this.http://www.oddee.com/item_99786.aspx  In each of these lists, our present discussion is not just on the list, it is number one.  Every time.  Oddjob84 (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

text:  To directly address your concerns:  It has nothing but coverage in reliable sources for the fire.  The RSN was about one reference which supported existance of the earlier attraction in the same location.  Every expert in the field is aware of this.  Coverage came, but has never gone.  The four new references above are from 2014.  The NFPA restudied and published it again in 2014 because they think it is that important.  And it absolutely was and is a critical part of the industry.  All of the fire and safety codes for haunted attractions and dark rides in use to this day stem from this event.  Oddjob84 (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  All of the arguments above also indirectly indicate this article should be renamed. If this article were to be renamed to, say for instance, The Great Adventure Fire, I could see the importance level being High. I'm not afraid to admit that the fire overshadows the attraction, I just didn't want the attraction to vanish into the shadows. Unfortunately, it may go that way anyway. If it is renamed, any mention of the prior attraction would be irrelevant. Anything about the construction and operation would have to relate to how the fire killed those kids. Even though the Haunted Mansion was the reason the Haunted Castle was constructed, that will be difficult to source.  — Myk Streja (aack!) 00:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Myk_Streja, I'm not going to pursue a renaming at this time. The article needs to sort out its content first with proper referencing, and since it seems to still be in the early stages relatively speaking, we can worry about an RM discussion at a later date. If you want to begin one sooner rather than later, however, please do. By the way, when you use the  template, you can't stack names. , for example, only pinged me but listed Oddjob84. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Oddjob84: The NFPA sources are by far the strongest of the bunch. They show the historical significance of the fire itself. I'm still not sure it's a High importance to Amusement Parks as a whole, but the importance value placed on the banner is a subjective rating anyway. It's primary impact is determining which list it's placed on within the WikiProject, and even if we get it wrong, it wouldn't have a serious impact to Wikipedia. As for the other sources (and thanks for putting forth the effort to gather these), they are generally not reliable. These sources consist primarily of web blogs and non-journalistic contribution. If you read the Terms and Conditions at each website, you'll find that content is not vetted by the publisher on any of them, and often, these lists and articles are submitted by users with no reputable credentials. One of the authors, by the way, only has his Facebook contact info posted on the site and apparently specializes in UFO and conspiracy theories (per his own description). One of his recent articles is about how Neil Armstrong was NOT the first man on the moon. That profile is a bit alarming! --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. I'm not going to block the change to High if you deem it as such, but the fire code is just one aspect of literally hundreds that go into the planning of an attraction. And that's just for an attraction. As far as an amusement park is concerned, this is a tiny dot on the radar. I'm not trying to belittle fire codes and fire safety practices in the industry, because obviously they are very important. It's just that in this specific case, the topic hasn't received a lot of coverage to those who aren't employed in the amusement park industry. Remember, insider knowledge is not the high-level perspective we're supporting here. We should rate articles based on how likely they will be mentioned when researching the WikiProject's main topic. So if I was writing a book or working on research dealing with the amusement park industry as a whole, how likely would the Haunted Castle appear within that publication, and how important would it be to include it? Mid importance is nothing to scoff at. It means somewhat likely, which is a very high pedestal to be placed on. High basically means it absolutely should, and Top means your work would greatly suffer without it. If there was a WikiProject or task force dedicated to the safety aspect, then this would undoubtedly be a High or Top priority. Feel free to change it though as you see fit. I've said my peace! --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the comfortable consensus is Mid at this time.  Since we will inevitably review the Class C rating once the article is further along, and since we will undoubtedly have a title discussion, I think it wise to go with the lower rating, which we can review again when we have more in the article.    Oddjob84 (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProjects Amusement Parks 

message: Here's a new reference for research and inclusion; <nowiki><nowiki>  Oddjob84 (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Reference 

message: Okay, so an attraction burns down and kills a group of teenagers. A 13 year old boy comes forward and says 
   "uh, yeah, I met this, uh, older boy at the park entrance. He said he was 14, but he never told me his name. And then he led me into the Haunted House to, uh, show me around, and there was one dark place, so he took his lighter out and used it to find his way down the hall, but he uh, bumped into the wall at one point and the foam rubber like instantly caught on fire, so we just took off and left. I don't know where he went after that, he just disappeared"
...and the investigators totally bought this, and just said "okay, thanks for your honesty, too bad we can't find this kid. Oh well. Here's a medal for being so honest"?  My first thought on hearing that is "the kid lit the place on fire, not expecting it to kill 8 people, and then made up a story about meeting some mysterious 14 year old boy to put the blame on someone else". Or perhaps the 14 year old boy DID exist, there is no way that "bumping into a wall with a lighter" would cause "foam rubber" to ignite and burn a place down. You could have a wall hung with strips of toilet paper and you'd have to work for a few moments to get the stuff to ignite enough to spread. Lighters don't just ignite everything they brush against, and if I was a boy who burned a place down and killed 8 people, I would also make up a story about some mysterious, slightly older boy who accidentally caught the place on fire and then disappeared. AnnaGoFast (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "14 year old boy"?