This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
Edited the table. The Eurofighter at the Park At MOA is the Spongebob Squarepants Rock Bottom Plunge; the Avatar Airbender is an Intamin AG Surf Rider or something similar to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.157.174 (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are trying to add information regarding the June 2015 incident involving a Gerstlauer roller coaster, The Smiler, to the article. This is problematic for two reasons. First, devoting space in an article about the manufacturer on an isolated incident involving a single attraction would potentially violate WP:UNDUE. Second, single incidents are added primarily because of their immediate coverage in news articles, and since Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it doesn't make sense to add this here when it will be removed when the news cycle dies down. The incident should absolutely be covered on the ride's page itself, since this ride is quite notable for having a number of mechanical issues, as well as on pages about Alton Towers. However, unless there is a widespread case of problems involving Gerstlauer attractions (highly unlikely, but not impossible), mentioning this one here seems a bit excessive ... for now. --McDoobAU9321:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This should be mentioned as it would be the only referenced subject in the prose of this article, so is regarded by well-regarded news outlets as the most important thing to have happened in the companies history.Dingowasher (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would argue that having someone die on one of your rides would probably be more notable, but that incident isn't here either. The incident is most significant to the ride itself (which is already notable for numerous breakdowns), next for Alton Towers (they call it the most significant incident in their history), but not so much for Gerstlauer. That would change if the investigation reveals that Alton Towers was following Gerstlauer's recommendations and the incident occurred anyway, or a flaw in the design resulted in the incident. Conversely, if it were to turn out that Alton Towers was operating the ride improperly, against Gerstlauer's instructions, then the company would have no connection to the incident other than it manufactured the ride. Again, a significant number of problems would warrant inclusion. Wanting to include a single event, no matter how cited it is, is the reason WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE exist. --McDoobAU9321:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We must be careful to follow "WP:NOR". A judgment on the significance is own research: this must have all been considered by the reputable source we have. The source considered it relevant that the ride was manufactured by Gerstlauer, and so we must also consider it relevant. This would then be the only referenced statement in the history section: all other statements appear to be researched by the author of the page, and so of less importance than the statement at hand.Dingowasher (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an interesting way to argue for inclusion (kind of like flipping WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but again that would be no different than a news story about a person driving a car and running over a pedestrian. If the story mentions that the car was a Vauxhall Astra, for example, do we have that in the car's article? As you said, the author of the story thought it important to mention it. WP:NOTNEWS still applies, and WP:UNDUE would also hold pending the outcome of the investigation. We can wait until that's resolved before making the change. --McDoobAU9313:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, I don't think it should be included until the report of at least one investigation has been released. The whole segment doesn't seem neutral, it reads like something you'd find from The Mirror. If any major accidents are going to be included, then the 2013 accident on Texas Giant should be mentioned since Gerstlauer built the trains for that ride. In my personal opinion, this incident should be confined to The Smiler's page since it's locked and includes citations. Side note: "carriages" is not the correct terminology used by manufacturers or by the enthusiasts; the only people who used that term were news outlets after the accident. Cigfu (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
