Talk:Valravn (roller coaster)

Attraction Incidents

Valravn discussion of inclusion of june incident. --DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you asking a question here? If you favor adding the June incident, then state your case and reasoning behind doing so. I agree with McDoobAU93 in this particular case, because not every minor occurrence on a ride needs to be tracked in an encyclopedia. If there are other articles doing that, then they may be need to be addressed as well. Wikipedia is not a database that catalogs all events surrounding a particular topic (see WP:NOTNEWS). In order to be included here, they need to carry significant weight, meaning they altered the design, functionality, or existence of the ride in such a way that someone reading about the ride 50 years from now would need to know about. This doesn't qualify. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Heres my reasoning for including it theres precedence for including incidents on both pages for example the Steel Vengeance and Magnum pages literally train bumping incindents listed in both places. I'm also making the argument to include this becuase this is one of the first, if not the first, documemted incidnets on a B&M roller coaster that isnt the fault of a guest or bird. Also the minor incidents should be discussed further because this on the Raptor (Cedar Point) "On July 6, 2009, a guest complained of feeling faint after the ride. Raptor was immediately shut down as the guest was transported to a local hospital. The ride remained closed for the remainder of the day, reopening the next afternoon after a thorough inspection was completed. The guest was later released from the hospital."DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Disregard what other articles have done. Junk gets through on Wikipedia all the time, and just because you see junk in other places doesn't mean the behavior needs to be replicated here. The important question to ask is one I just mentioned above but you seemed to ignore: Does someone researching the ride 50 or 100 years from now need to know about this? If the incident does nothing but cause a temporary closure, then the answer is likely no, because it isn't that significant. Research and tertiary sources (which includes encyclopedias like Wikipedia) focus on the most significant aspects of an article topic, as those are the ones most likely to stand the test of time. If secondary sources out there are analyzing the impact of an event like this, then I'd probably change my mind and include it, because that makes it more significant. However, newspapers and TV channels are not usually considered secondary sources; they are almost always considered primary. If you need help understanding the difference, see WP:PSTS. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)