Jump to content

Talk:Amusement park

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Text from 2002

[edit]

What do you mean by "The first amusement park in the modern sense". I've visited the Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen, established in 1843, and it looks like an amusement park "in the modern sense" to me with roller coasters, concessions, shows, etc. -- Derek Ross

I agree: Even in the 1840s, without electricity, there were mechanical amusements, and to this day these have been preserved (updated, of course!) along with restaurants, band stands, concert hall, etc.

The initiative in 1843 belonged to one Georg Carstensen, but whether his ideas were original, or possibly inspired from outside (Paris? London?), is a question. Along with the name "Tivoli" he would use "Vauxhall", a word used in London at the time.

S.

Yep, He originally called the park, after the older amusement parks, Tivoli in Paris and Vauxhall in London, neither of which exist now. -- Derek Ross

2005

[edit]

Since the funfair came to town this morning (Cambridge UK), I'm looking at improving some of the related articles.

First off I am proposing to move the section on Fairgrounds here to become an article of its own, either at funfair or fairground (the dictionary definition of fairground is as the place were fairs take place, but fairground gets more google hits and the University of Sheffield apparently has a National Fairground Archive). Amusement parks certainly grew out of travelling fairs and share some of the same rides. But in the UK, a travelling fair is significantly different from an amusement park.

There also appears to be some confusion over the use of the word 'carnival'. I suspect in the United States the word 'carnival' is used to describe a smaller travelling fun fair. However the article on carnival is exclusively about its Catholic Europe/South American use as public revelry most particularly associated with Shrove Tuesday but potentially covering the months from mid-winter to Easter. Funfairs are often to be found alongside these festivals but they are not the same thing.

There must also be connections with the tradition of medieval fairs and markets (partially covered at fair) and modern county fairs, state fairs and similar agricultural shows, most of which appear to be covered in a disjointed fashion. I would also expect to find some similar traditions in mainland Europe - as I child I saw a German travelling fair/funfair which had very lavishly decorated traditional rides.

This morning I also discovered there is a small British subculture of 'fairground enthusiasts' who are rather similar to train spotters, following travelling fairs around the country and photographing their lorries. -- Solipsist 13:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  1. There seems to be a lot of regional bias towards the Americans and British. Other locations seem to be neglected.
  2. Solipist, I agree with you, the funfair article needs to be split.

Andrew pmk 02:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK I've now moved the section to funfair and started to grow it. It would benefit from some input on the European perspective and other international differences on funfairs.
I was tempted to move the section on Australian shows which now looks significantly out of place. However, it looks more appropriate to merged it with agricultural show. -- Solipsist 29 June 2005 18:03 (UTC)

May I suggest that the concept of a 'theme park' (from which this article is a redirect) is rather different from an amusement park or funfair? I think there is quite a lot to be said about the development of this concept in recent decades and the spread of this aspect of American culture throughout the world. Fluoronaut 12 December 2005 22:03 (UTC)

2 things. "Funfair" or "carnival" make me think "circus", which is a local (only?)/Canadian (only?) term for what both those terms imply, including a transportable fairground, complete with rides. Also, I've heard the oldest amusement park is in Denmark, N Swe. Anybody able to ID & locate it? Trekphiler 07:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam?

[edit]

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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Amusement_park&oldid=33581261

WillMcC 23:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

As I said, spam was not the intention (if I wanted to spam, I would write a bot and do exactly that) Calling it "spam" is a bit extreme. Your link defines spam as "advertisements masquerading as articles, and wide-scale external link spamming", which the link is neither. The only purpose of posting was to benefit the Wikipedia community, as the site owners have some pictures of rarely seen attractions (http://www.themeparkreview.com/photos/index.htm) in the gallery.

According to the "External Link" page, one can add "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews." If it's the "store" section that's a problem, I understand, but to call it spam is rediculous. If this is the case however, you might want to remove the other links with stores too.

Alternatively, here are some sites that could be useful www.screamscape.com - An amusement park news and rumors site www.joyrides.com - A decent photo gallery of theme parks and rides, though no longer updated www.napha.org/

WillMcC 01:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Spammer on the loose

[edit]

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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=69.243.16.155 WillMcC 03:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Some potentially useful info for inclusion in the article --Jason Ling 14:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC):[reply]

TOP 50 AMUSEMENT/THEMEPARKS WORLDWIDE

[edit]
Legends for Chart:
A-Rank
B-Park & Location
C-Attendance

  A B                                                    C
  1 MAGIC KINGDOM at WALT DISNEY WORLD lake Buena
     Vista, Fla.                                      15,170,000
  2 DISNEYLAND Anaheim                                13,360,000
  3 TOKYO DISNEYLAND Tokyo                            13,200,000
  4 TOKYO DISNEY SEA Tokyo                            12,200,000
  5 DISNEYLAND PARIS Marne-La-Vallee, France          10,200,000
  6 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS JAPAN Osaka, Japan                9900,000
  7 EPCOT at WALT DISNEY WORLD take Buena Vista, Fla   9,4000,000
  8 DISNEY-MGM STUDIOS THEME PARK at WALT DISNEY
     WORLD Lake Buena Vista, Fla                       8,260,000
  9 LOTTE WORLD Seoul, South Korea                     8,000,000
 10 DISNEY'S ANIMAL KINGDOM at WALT DISNEY WORLD
     Lake Buena Vista, Fla                             7,820,000
 11 EVERLAND Kyonggi-Do, South Korea                   7,500,000
 12 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS FLORIDA at UNIVERSAL
     ORLANDO Orlando                                   6,700,000
 13 ISLANDS Of ADVENTURE at UNIVERSAL
     ORLANDO Orlando                                   6,300,000
 14 BLACKPOOL PLEASURE BEACH Blackpool, England        6,200,000
 15 DISNEY'S CALIFORNIA ADVENTURE Anaheim              5,630,000
 16 SEAWORLD FLORIDA Orlando                           5,600,000
 17 YOKOHAMA HAKKEIJIMA SEA PARADISE Yokohama, Japan   5,100,000
 18 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS HOLLYWOOD Universal City, Calif  5,000,000
 19 ADVENTUREDOME at CIRCUS CIRCUS Las Vegas           4,400,000
 20 TIVOLI GARDENS Copenhagen Denmark                  4,240,000
 21 BUSCH GARDENS TAMPA BAY Tampa Bay, Fla             4,100,000
 22 SEAWORLD CALIFORNIA San Diego                      4,000,000
+23 OCEAN PARK, Hong Kong                              3,800,000
+23 NAGASHIMA SPA LAND Kuwana, Japan                   3,800,000
 25 KNOTT'S BERRY FARM Buena Park, Calif               3,580,000
 26 PARAMOUNT'S KINGS ISLAND Kings Island, Ohio        3,510,000
 27 PARAMOUNT CANADA'S WONDERLAND Maple, Ontario       3,420,000
 28 EUROPA-PARK Rust Germany                           3,300,000
 29 DE EFTEUNG Kaatsheuvel, Netherlands                3,200,000
 30 CEDAR POINT Sandusky, Ohio                         3,170,000
+31 MOREY'S PIERS Wildwood, NJ                         3,100,000
+31 PORT AVENTURA Salou, Spain                         3,100,000
+31 GARDALAND Castelnuovo del Garda, Italy             3,100,000
+31 LISEBERG Gothenburg, Sweden                        3,000,000
+34 SANTA CRUZ BEACH BOARDWALK Santa Cruz, Calif       3,000,000
 36 SIX FLAGS GREAT ADVENTURE Jackson, N.J.            2,800,000
 37 HUIS TEM BOSCH Sasebo City, Japan                  2,750,000
+38 SIX FLAGS MAGIC MOUNTAIN Valencia, Calif           2,700,000
+38 LA FERIA DE CHAPULTAPEC Mexico City                2,700,000
 40 SUZUKA CIRCUIT Suzuka, Japan                         200,000
 41 CAMP SNOOPY at MALI OF AMERICA Bloomington, Minn   2,590,000
+42 BAKKEN Klampenborg, Denmark                        2,500,000
+42 HERSHEYPARK Hershey, Pa                            2,500,000
+44 ALTON TOWERS Staffordshire, England                2,400,000
+44 BUSCH GARDENS (THE OLD COUNTRY) Williamsburg, Va   2,400,000
 46 SIX FLAGS GREAT AMERICA Gurnee, III                2,300,000
 47 SEOUL LAND Seoul, South Korea                       2250,000
+48 WALT DISNEY STUDIOS PARK Marne-La-Vallee, France   2,200,000
+48 SIX FLAGS OVER TEXAS Arlington Texas               2,200,000
 50 SIX FLAGS MEXICO Mexico City                       2,150,000
Note: + indicates a tie. Attendance estimated for calendar
year 2004.
Source: Amusement Business and Economics Research Associates

Lead tweak

[edit]

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)[reply]

Cite it, then we can put it back. Timetrial3141592 00:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthy amusement, theme and water parks

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

SUGGESTED LINK - http://www.seasonpasspodcast.com/

SUGGESTED LINK - http://www.coasterimage.com/mapindex/index.htm Contains maps with links and locations for what seems to be every amusement park in north america. Also state specific maps as well. Very useful information.

SUGGESTED LINK - * Negative-G - Photos and information about amusement parks and roller coasters.

SUGGESTED LINK - * EuroThemePark www.eurothemepark.net - An online MMORPG which is based on theme/amusement parks, you build your own.

SUGGESTED LINK - * The Coaster Forums - Discuss theme parks, roller coasters, flat rides, other rides, water slides, trip reports, upcoming trips, and more at these forums! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.193.72 (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SUGGESTED LINK - * Defunct Parks A catalog/encyclopedia of N. American amusement parks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.213.33 (talk) 15:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SUGGESTED LINK - * Watch Tower Amusement Park —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.143.147 (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SUGGESTED LINK Parkr.info It's a database of amusement park all over the world. It show them in a map. --Angelo Penone (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References/rewrite

[edit]

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)[reply]

Done for now. Still needs some added work. --Tinned Elk 01:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New section on Alternative Energy Theme Parks

[edit]

As a new wiki editor, I just added this section. OK? There is a lot of activity and discussion in the business world about alternative energy theme parks, but it is difficult to find wiki-quality references. If anyone has seen a propsal or plan that can be referenced, please enter some text in this section. I'll continue to look, myself, but this first entry was the only one that came up on Google. I have a quote about an Epcot contact in an email saying that such a new style park is a "no-brainer", but that can't be referenced until it is reported. I also have a quote in email concerning Disney and Las Vegas as a another place a park might be going - lots of sunlight there. This first Cape Cod entry obviously exploits their wind potential. Nukeh (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Manapouri power plant "ride" is one of the scariest things I have ever done. If any wiki people have pictures of the bus going into or through the tunnel to the power cavern, it would be nice of you to link here through wiki media and edit the text accordingly.Nukeh (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I certainly believe you were editing in good faith, what you linked to described either (a) a tour of a hydroelectric plant or (b) a stab in the dark latching onto currently-hot buzzwords as a hope of jump-starting tourism (yes, I looked at both references). I toured Hoover Dam 4 years ago, and I would hardly call that a theme park, as there was no theme; it was a hydroelectric dam. For that matter, having medical restrictions is not one of the defining characteristics of a theme/amusement park. Convenience stores have warnings about the use of microwave ovens for people who use artificial pacemakers, and they certainly aren't amusement parks.
Let's assume for a moment that there actually is a desire to construct amusement parks whose theme is alternative energy. By extension, we would then need to craft separate subheads on all the different types of themes there are--movies (like Universal Studios Hollywood and Disney's Hollywood Studios), fantasy (like Disneyland) or even chocolate (like Hersheypark). The article should be generic, with the actual theme discussed in the article for the individual parks.
McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should start a new page and think of a better title. Any suggestions? Perhaps a Hover Dam tour and other things educational could be included. Nukeh (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Description of notable tour elements could certainly be added to the various facility articles; I looked at Hoover Dam's page and it does mention the tour but it doesn't have too many details. Or, you could start an article on the power plant in New Zealand you visited. However, don't approach it as a theme park, since that's not what it is. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Place

[edit]

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)[reply]

Written badly

[edit]

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)[reply]

Agreed. Stuff like this is weird, "The temporary nature of these fairs helps to convey the feeling that people are in a different place or time."

Huh? How so, and says who? When I go to fairs, the only impression about time and place and is that I'm in the place where the temporary park is erected from time to time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.59.37 (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pay one price vs. pay as you go

[edit]

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)[reply]

Unable to Add Reference

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ckatz, you have helped prove a point here. You are the arbiter and you are the one who gets to decide the nature of the content. This has been taken to a new level. I am not permitted to cite my own work, even though, to again quote Wikipedia's policy ("This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.") this can be allowed. Here is one example of how this ultimately impacts the quality of Wikipedia entries. If I wanted to discuss an ethnographic study of the theme park AstroWorld, which some might consider significant, I could not do this per your watchdogging. To do so would be to cite the only work published in this regard, which I have written. So, here you (Ckatz ) fail Wikipedia in two respects: (1) you have limited the encyclopedic content of an entry, (2) you have decided that expert knowledge on a subject is irrelevant. The new level, as you now have raised it, involves your rebuking of my contributions to a number of 'talk' pages. Talk pages are not part of the entry (directly) and now you are deeming those contributions to be illicit. But, certainly, this is not about the power of language, representation or politics...because, so it seems, you have said so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xrhetor (talk • contribs) 23:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


Urban Legend

[edit]

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)[reply]

File:4a25634r.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:4a25634r.jpg, 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)[reply]

Family-owned theme parks--Keith McKray?

[edit]

"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)[reply]

It seems it was vandalism by 99.196.93.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on 26 December 2011. I have now reverted their edits. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First Amusement Park in the Country Debate

[edit]

Eldorado Amusement Park of 25 acres was opened in 1981 overlooking New York City. It is mentioned as the first of it's kind in several references. I added this Eldorado Amusement Park to the article but it has been removed; Why?--Wikipietime (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woodward's Gardens opened in San Francisco in 1866 with an enclosed entertainment area, regulated by a single company, and charging admission. This was perhaps 30 years before similar developments elsewhere. Kstern999 (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kstern999: The WG article doesn't mention when the area began hosting amusement rides. Sure, it originated in 1866, but it may have only had art/museum exhibits in its early years. Regardless, a source would need to state this definitively. Also, Lake Compounce opened in 1846 and is widely recognized as the oldest in the US by reliable sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GoneIn60: Eadweard Muybridge photographed the amusement rides at Woodward's prior to 1871. My concern is with the statement in the article, "The first permanent enclosed entertainment area, regulated by a single company, was founded in Coney Island in 1895;". If Compounce was first, that should be noted in the article, but as I read the article there's no mention of rides prior to 1911. If there's any question of Woodward's precedence I'll post some reliably dated photos. Kstern999 (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GoneIn60: Mrs. Frank Leslie describes Woodward's Gardens in Chapter 19 of her book "California: a pleasure trip from Gotham to the Golden Gate, April, May, June 1877" as "open to the public, who, for twenty-five cents each soul, may spend the day in rambling among shady groves, verdant lawns, flowery bosquets, lakes, streams and waterfalls, conservatories, ferneries, using the swings, the trapezes, the merry-go-rounds at will" I've added this to Woodward's Gardens Kstern999 (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GoneIn60: Woodward's Gardens, with it's "Rotary Boat" ride probably operational by 1867 and no later than 1871, is likely the first amusement park in US to conform to this article's definition.Unless someone can come up with a park with rides prior to 1866, we should give Woodward due credit. I don't think Compounce qualifies. Kstern999 (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a claim for Compounce being first, still operating or not. The source cited for Lake Compounce also states, "Lake Compounce’s first ride, a carousel, opened on Memorial day, 1911." In their claim, their definition of amusement park differs from this article. Otherwise you could install a ride (or something else) in Boston Common and then call it the "oldest continuously operating." That claim is rather meaningless in this context, particularly if you're looking for the first amusement park in US. I don't think Compounce played any significant role in the development of the modern amusement park, and it's confusing to mention it in this context. Point being that if, in 1870 you sought a recognizably modern amusement park in US, you'd find only one, Woodward's Gardens and I know of none before. Compounce has been "continuously operating amusement park" only since 1911. The statement in the intro of this article is incorrect, regardless of source, unless "considered" is operative, which is a pretty low standard for factuality. Kstern999 (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think there's a claim for Compounce being first, still operating or not." - Kstern999
On the contrary, there are plenty of sources that support this claim. A quick search turns up an abundant trove. Here's a small sample:
Lake Compounce: Bringing Amusements to the State’s Residents Since 1846 -- ConnecticutHistory.org
140-Year Run Of Fun At Lake Compounce Perseveres -- The New York Times
For The 172nd Time, Lake Compounce Will Kick Off A Fresh Season -- Hartford Courant
A most unusual carousel at the Lake Compounce... -- Library of Congress
How to Swim at Lake Compounce Amusement Park in Connecticut -- USA Today
As clearly stated in each example, Lake Compounce is widely recognized as the oldest, continually-operating in the US. I think you're getting tripped up on how you're personally defining the term "amusement park". As the article suggests, fairs, pleasure gardens, and exhibitions are all early forms of amusement parks. It doesn't have to feature a mechanical ride in order to qualify. Furthermore, the consensus in sources is what we go by. We cannot accept personal research as a basis for challenging a widely-held belief.
On another note, I reverted a recent addition you made. The statement becomes convoluted and appears to contradict itself, casting unnecessary doubt. If there are reliable sources directly challenging this notion, then it should be addressed in the Lake Compounce article in a section dedicated to the controversy, not in the lead section of another article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also see you're challenging the statement in the "Modern amusement parks" section. I don't feel strongly about keeping it, but it should not be changed to Woodward's Gardens without a source that specifically states this claim. You cannot look at old photos or research old publications to make that determination for yourself. A publication that directly supports the claim would be needed, and preferably more than one source. Also, the cited source for the current claim should probably be verified. Another option would be to move it to the talk page for another editor to verify down the road. If that verification ever happens, he/she can add it back into the article. I don't have a preference on what approach is used. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too much Disney

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]

Am I xcovered on spiderweb? however This[1] is not what I think when I think on an amusement park, its just a castle and I already know that is dysney but the image doesnt offer a clear context as a mechanical wheel would be, the image is ok but not as the first image.--Neurorebel (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC) This image[2] in turn offers a clear context.[reply]

[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 02:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

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) 08:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i just added an external link to a draft page Beverly Park Kiddieland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LIUCIlaria05 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

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) 22:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Portal:Amusement parks for deletion

[edit]

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)[reply]

Largest amusement park

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Theme park article/redirect

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Makes sense to me. It's an arbitrary/subjective distinction. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect – I also agree that it's unnecessary to have two separate articles. Theme parks are a specific type of amusement park, and the terms are often used interchangeably (whether correctly or not). There's simply not enough coverage at this time to warrant the need for a content fork. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well time to be bold. The redirect is easily undone if needed. Powers T 12:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

"Test seat" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 25 § Test seat until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 13:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amusement_park&oldid=1229005044"