Talk:Amusement park

message: I'm sort of new to this, but I was confused when I posted a link to a site and then someone removed it removed because he/she considered it to be "spam". The site is not my own, and neither myself nor the site owner make money from the link. I only posted it because the content in the galleries would benefit the Wikipedia community. Can I get some explanation for this?
Edit in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amusement_park&oldid=33581261
WillMcC 23:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The linked site sells DVDs and T-shirts. You've even got a 'store' link in the main menu - that's spam. If the site offered seminal information on the subject it might be OK, but in practice it appears to have little to offer. See Wikipedia:spam and Wikipedia:External links for more on guidelines. -- Solipsist 00:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam? 

message: Would someone create an infobox for amusement parks?  It seems that parks would be ideal for an infobox where info like location, establishment date, owner, related themes, number of rides, number of rollercoasters, acreage (sq km), website, associated hotels/resort could be consolidated into a easy to read format?  This could be easily be built from/consolidate the Disney park infobox :Template:Disneyparkinfo. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 23:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox? 

message: User 69.243.16.155 has been inserting a large number of external links on many coaster/amusement park related sites. All these links point to http://www.coaster-net.com/. I have removed most of them, but everyone should be on the lookout for when this user strikes again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=69.243.16.155
WillMcC 03:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spammer on the loose 

message: An anon removed the following from the lead:
:Disneyland in California (USA) was the first theme park.
Should it be restored? - RoyBoy 800 23:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite it, then we can put it back. Timetrial3141592 00:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead tweak 

message: I removed this list from the article -- making a selection is clearly POV. We already have a comprehensive list at List of amusement parks. bogdan 19:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Noteworthy amusement, theme and water parks

message: The External Links section was a bit of a mess, so I trimmed down the listing of links and changed the tag. Of the sites that remain, I believe that there are better sources than some, but I deleted anything that did not offer a directly valuable resource beyond this page. If anyone wants to add a link, please check Wikipedia:External_links and propose it first on this page --WillMcC 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links section 

message: I am going to tackle the task of inserting some references for the article. Any suggestions appreciated. --Tinned Elk 00:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done for now. Still needs some added work. --Tinned Elk 01:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References/rewrite 

message: Ontario Place is many things.  Inside a mall is not one of them.  Heads up, I'm going to edit that notation. DJSparky (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ontario Place

message: Most of this article is written badly.  That is to say, it makes too many assumptions without references and generally is not written in the style of an encyclopedia as wikipedia entries strive to do.  It reads too much like an essay.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.149.86 (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Written badly

message: This section appeared to have too many citation tags. I do agree that some citations were needed, and I did add a few. However, some fact tags were added to what would be simple, logical arguments. For example, under a pay-as-you-go scheme, guests do only spend money on what they wish to experience. Further, prices can be adjusted if only to satisfy the laws of supply and demand. We can certainly discuss this here, and I would suggest adding a section banner instead of filling the thing with fact tags.  --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pay one price vs. pay as you go 

message: I attempted to add a reference to a work which, in full disclosure, I am the author. This is an academic, peer-reviewed text that considers the history and development of the theme park. It's also the first to focus rather exclusively on the theme park as a social phenomenon--including how the theme park has been used as a 'text' by people on virtual spaces, in feature films, and in novels and video games. Alas, I cannot include such discussion or reference in this page due to the administrator's decisions. This is unfortunate as I am interested in theme parks as a social form and I feel that this research would benefit the entry. I should note that I have made no profits from this text. It is an academic text intended to extend the public's understanding of the theme park as a social form. In any case, I am hopeful that others might develop this line of reasoning in the entry since my edits are not allowed by this particular editor. Xrhetor (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Xrhetor, this is not about "censorship", "tolerance", "politics" or any of the other false claims you're making about my actions. Simply put, a substantial percentage of your edits have involved anonymously posting links, text and other references to your own published work. You may well disagree with the decision to remove your self-references per the conflict of interest and other guidelines, as is your right. You're also certainly entitled to seek other opinions. However, I must object to your chosen methodology, which to date has involved the misrepresentation of both my actions and your own edits. If you want to have a fair, balanced discussion about this, by all means do so in a centralized location rather than on a series of unconnected talk pages, and be clear about what has really occurred. Making false claims, and spreading those claims to multiple pages, does not strike me as "fair" under any definition of the term. --Ckatzchatspy 23:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I think you may be over-interpreting Ckatz's actions.  While we appreciate your attempts to add your work as references in Wikipedia, if that's all you're doing, it does begin to look less like helpfulness and more like self-promotion.  We have to guard very carefully against the latter, for what should be obvious reasons.  You have several options ahead of you, here.  One, you could present your work on the talk page of relevant articles for consideration by other authors; that's the modest route, in which you trust the judgment of your fellow editors to recognize the relevancy of your work and add appropriate information from it to the articles.  Two, you could seek a broader, single forum, rather than several individual article pages; Wikipedia:Editor assistance may attract the attention of those more skilled than I at offering suggestions.  Three, you could begin editing other areas of interest that have nothing to do with your own published work, and establish a reputation for fairness, skill at evaluating sources, and collaboration, and only then begin using your own work as a source on a limited scale; this will greatly reduce, if not eliminate, any suspicion of self-promotion from your actions.  Powers T 14:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unable to Add Reference 

message: The article still contains urban legends regarding history. 
I want to recall this one: Walt Disney never visited the Efteling park in The Netherlands, prior to opening Disneyland.  He did visit Madurodam (also in The Netherlands) however, a place that possibly inspired him to the concept of the "Storybook Land" attraction. More, the totally walled concept of Madurodam: a dyke going around it preventing views in and preventing the visitors to see the world outside of Madurodam (= one specific point Walt Disney always repeated to be a design guideline for Disneyland as a whole, and of Storybook Land as an attraction !). Miniature railways were circling the Madurodam park, hence a double relationship again with Disneyland & Storybook Land, both having the trains encircling it completely, and in those cases: on the dyke. 
But, no design or concept relation whatsoever between the Efteling park, and Disneyland can be proven. Concept & design differ totally and Walt's visit, as mentioned, is an urban legend. 
Reference : 
http://www.wonderlijkewcweb.org/index.htm?http&&&www.wonderlijkewcweb.org/indexvaria.htm?http&&&www.wonderlijkewcweb.org/losse_artikelen/walt_in_efteling/vanalles-walt.htm
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.82.111.74 (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban Legend 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:4a25634r.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: "The park is still owned and operated by the Keith McKray family has several other parks including Moonlight Luna Park, Fish Story, Pirates of the Caribbean, Carosel, Royal Carnival, Pay and Ride, Garanimals, and Tom Sawyer Adventures."
What does this even mean? This sentence appears right after the article talks about Silver Dollar City and the Herschend family, and I don't know who Keith McKray is but he certainly doesn't own or operate SDC. After googleing "Keith McKray" the only info I can find about him is the same exact grammatically incorrect sentence on other websites. If nobody clears this up I'll probably delete this sentence. Nonoah59 (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems it was vandalism by  on 26 December 2011. I have now reverted their edits. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family-owned theme parks--Keith McKray? 

message: The lead seems to have too many Disney imgaes, with one IP claiming it is the most important Theme Park. I think this warrants a serious discussion. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe only one of the castles should be featured at the top of the article, however, it could be debated which one. The Cinderella Castle is one of the most photographed and well-known structures but on the other hand, the Sleep Beauty Castle is the original.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe as the most visited theme park in the world (Magic Kingdom), the Cinderella Castle needs to be included as it is considered the icon of the theme park. To call it "too much Disney" is absolutely ludicrous, it's not Disney's fault that it has many theme parks and the most visited theme park in the world. (101.160.46.180 (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's false that there's too much Disney. Out of the top 10 most visited theme parks on Earth, NINE of them are Disney parks. The Magic Kingdom is probabbly more famous and attracts more people than the rest of the parks listed here combined, and Disneyland was the park that helped redefine the concept of "theme parks" as we know them today. Not including Disney World and Disneyland in an article about theme parks is like not including a picture of the Eiffel Tower in the article of Paris because there are too many monuments already. It's simply not valid. Both of  these parks should not only appear, but also be right at the beginning, because when it comes to this matter these two lead. I've already deleted Hong Kong Disneyland and left these two until we can decide the admission of all three pictures, but in my opinion this is nothing but a stupid discussion.--Luuchoo93 (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much Disney 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Amusement park. 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/20110811021142/https://www.nfa.dept.shef.ac.uk/history/rides/history.html to http://www.nfa.dept.shef.ac.uk/history/rides/history.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theblackpooltower.co.uk/facts.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717085827/http://southernspaces.org/2008/vale-amusements-modernity-technology-and-atlantas-ponce-de-leon-park-1870-1920 to http://southernspaces.org/2008/vale-amusements-modernity-technology-and-atlantas-ponce-de-leon-park-1870-1920
*Added  tag to http://www.ibisworld.com/pressrelease/pressrelease.aspx?prid=131:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927204017/http://latinotimes.com/lifestyle/361648-amusement-parks-tempt-visitors-with-pay-as-you-go-passes.html to http://latinotimes.com/lifestyle/361648-amusement-parks-tempt-visitors-with-pay-as-you-go-passes.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717085827/http://southernspaces.org/2008/vale-amusements-modernity-technology-and-atlantas-ponce-de-leon-park-1870-1920 to http://southernspaces.org/2008/vale-amusements-modernity-technology-and-atlantas-ponce-de-leon-park-1870-1920
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113234227/http://www.defunctparks.com:80/parks/PA/carsonia/carsonia.htm to http://www.defunctparks.com/parks/PA/carsonia/carsonia.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Amusement park. 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  tag to http://www.aecom.com/deployedfiles/Internet/Capabilities/Economics/_documents/Theme%20Index_2014_v1_1a.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071209022544/http://www.icewind.net/themepark/History/h_worldfairs.htm to http://www.icewind.net/themepark/History/h_worldfairs.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928220435/http://www.theblackpooltower.co.uk/facts.htm to http://www.theblackpooltower.co.uk/facts.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724223606/http://www.acmuseum.org/piers.html to http://www.acmuseum.org/piers.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801031817/http://www.weehawkenhistory.org/view_item.php?id=161&back=0&category= to http://www.weehawkenhistory.org/view_item.php?id=161&back=0&category=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717085827/http://southernspaces.org/2008/vale-amusements-modernity-technology-and-atlantas-ponce-de-leon-park-1870-1920 to http://southernspaces.org/2008/vale-amusements-modernity-technology-and-atlantas-ponce-de-leon-park-1870-1920
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113234227/http://www.defunctparks.com/parks/PA/carsonia/carsonia.htm to http://www.defunctparks.com/parks/PA/carsonia/carsonia.htm
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) 08:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Amusement park. 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/20100127094024/http://www.hohoholdings.com/schistory.htm to http://www.hohoholdings.com/schistory.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719011147/http://www.cityofatlanticcity.org/con_abo_historytimeline.asp to http://www.cityofatlanticcity.org/con_abo_historytimeline.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716080155/http://sixflagsmagicmountainguide.com/sixflags.html to http://sixflagsmagicmountainguide.com/sixflags.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) 22:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether :Portal:Amusement parks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Amusement parks until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 00:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Portal:Amusement parks]] for deletion 

message: I removed the text referring to Six Flags Great Adventure as the largest park in the world. Largest is ambiguous. If we are discussing sheer size than the entire Walt Disney World complex is obviously the largest. For individual parks, we could look at acreage, but finding out how much is developed is tricky and no one has shown any reliable sources. Some sources claim Animal Kingdom is 520 acres, which would be larger than Six Flags Great Adventures 510 acres. It's also worth noting that some sections of SFGAd, particularly the area around the former Batman & Robin Chiller coaster are abandoned. Should that be included in developed acres? There are other parks with lots of acreage, such as Kings Island — which some sources claim to be as large as 700 acres — but not all of that is developed. Until there is a definitive, citable source, as well as specific agreed-upon criteria, I think it best to avoid referring to any particular park as the largest.—JlACEer (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, any such claim would require a source that actually states "largest" or something along those lines, otherwise it could be seen as original research or synthesis. By the way, I believe the 700+ acres Kings Island had at one point is a smaller number today. Other businesses nearby, such as Great Wolf Lodge, have developed on some of this land, which is no longer part of the amusement park. Just speculation though! --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest amusement park 

message: Theme Park redirects to this article, but theme park is its own article (except its really more of a list). This article doesn't so much as link to that one (and in fact implies in the lede that the topic is covered in this article), though it does link to Theme Park (disambiguation). Theme park, the article, also doesn't link to the disambiguation page.
Such has been the state of things for many years, but it's disjointed and misleading. Any thoughts on what we should do? Should we have two separate articles or one combined article? And should Theme Park and theme park be different things?
-- Powers T 15:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a great catch. It appears theme park is not necessary. There is not enough of a differentiation between amusement park and theme park to warrant separate articles. Theme Park and theme park are the same thing, and should both redirect to amusement park. I am not sure the proper process of deleting "theme park", but that is route to go in my opinion.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Theoretically, since the end result would be just to redirect theme park, no deletion discussion is necessary as no admin is needed to delete the page. But it seems like it would be a good idea to get a few more eyeballs on this somehow.  I'll see if I can find a spot.  Powers T 17:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. It's an arbitrary/subjective distinction. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theme park article/redirect 

message: https://aecom.com/theme-index/ -- This website includes reports on attendance at the top amusement/theme parks, and the top water parks, for the world and for four major regions (North America, Latin America, Asia/Pacific, and Europe/Middle East/Africa), for each year from 2012 through 2020. I would like to suggest it as an external link for this page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link proposal: Global Attractions Attendance Report 

message: The redirect Test seat has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.   Jay 💬 13:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Test seat]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: When I was younger, I was going to the roller coaster in Mall of America, when I first got there, I started getting happy and I yelled for how fun this is. Now that I'm older, I WANNA GO TO THE  ROLLER COASTER AGAIN!!! 2601:248:4400:1A10:105D:F669:278:7EAE (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I LOVE ROLLER COASTERS! 🎢😆