Talk:Incidents at Cedar Fair parks

Amusement Parks: Cedar Fair / Roller Coasters Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Cedar Fair Entertainment Company task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by Roller Coasters task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Carolina Cobra[edit]

I just want to say this here, I know it's not major, but at my trip to Carowinds in 2014, I remember the Carolina Cobra getting stuck on the first lift.

Ownership[edit]

If an incident occurred when a park was under different ownership, than there should be a note saying so. Having to go to each park's page and check the ownership at the time of occurrence is cumbersome and time consuming. This goes for the other companies incident pages as well.The Phool (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see previous discussions on this topic. The incident occured at the park, regardless of who owned it at the time or who owns it currently. As park ownership changes over time, and there is a possibility of incidents occuring under different ownerships at the same park, the question arises as to where to place the incidents (the incident belongs on the page dedicated to the owner at the time or all park incidents are consolidated under the current owner. The former will lead to confusion as multiple pages are required to view a single park's incidents; the latter's only issue is that you are questioning who owned the park at the time of each incident). SpikeJones (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links[edit]

The two links to news reports about the Son of Beast accidents both link to pages that no longer exist. Does anyone have some better links? Shaz91 13:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page really necessary, why can't it just be included in the specific park's own page? (This unsigned comment was written by 65.188.197.165 on 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Because incidents stretch out pages for each individual park tremendously. This is a companion page to the Incidents at Disney parks, Incidents at Six Flags parks, and Incidents at Busch parks pages, and gives researchers a single consolidated source of related information. It'll fill up over time. SpikeJones 21:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paramount parks?!?[edit]

Why is King's Island listed here? That's a Paramount owned Park! 208.252.190.184 12:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Cedar Fair purchased the Paramount chain last year. Check that the "more parks" link on the King's Island website clicks over to this link to verify for yourself: http://www.cedarfair.com [1] SpikeJones 13:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Fair purchased Kings Island on June 30 of this year: Paramount's Kings Island#New ownership. The Son of Beast incident was on July 9th, less than two weeks later. It just seems odd to list it as a "Cedar Fair incident" since they had little to do with maintenance of the ride by that point. --Birdhombre 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When Cedar Fair purchased the Paramount parks, they purchased all associated liabilities and ownership of the historical events that happened at those parks... unless Paramount Parks declared bankruptcy before the sale, etc (disclaimer: i am not a lawyer, but the historical event portion still holds). In any case, an example: IF Six Flags were to purchase Cedar Fair, then this page would be merged into the Incidents at Six Flags parks page. SpikeJones 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, except you can't "purchase" history. Just because Cedar Fair purchased the property and whatever financial liabilities, does not make them responsible for incidents that happened before the purchase was made. That would be like Paramount buying Cedar Point, then claiming Paramount as a company built the world's tallest roller coaster in 2003. Sure, they would own Top Thrill Dragster at that point, but they can't then claim ownership of the history of the ride prior to their ownership. 216.137.135.78 13:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Fair purchased the park's history when they purchased the parks. Paramount parks are now Cedar Fair parks, therefore information on those parks appear here instead of being scattered on separate pages. SpikeJones 13:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with this reasoning. Cedar Fair has an exemplary safety record in the industry and an incident that occurred before they owned a park shouldn't be on one of these pages. Further, the existing corporate structures of many of these parks were dissolved and these are all essentially asset sales. If you were going to apply the "history purchase" logic to a sale of assets you could argue that someone who bought a used car was now in effect the person who had put the past mileage on it. It doesn't make any sense. Crowdes 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is passing judgement about Cedar Fair's culpability in any of the listed incidents beyond a simple statement of facts. The incidents occurred at the specific park at the specific date listed. The specific park is currently a Cedar Fair park. Therefore, the incident is then listed on the Cedar Fair page. Similarly, when Six Flags sold Elitch Gardens and other SF parks to PARC Management, those parks' entries got placed on that incidents page. Separating out events that occurred at Elitch Gardens (Six Flags era) vs Elitch Gardens (PARC Management era) is confusing to the enduser and a potential duplication of effort if someone is not aware of the page structure when editing. SpikeJones 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on your car mileage analogy, the new owner may not have placed the mileage on the car themselves, but the mileage still exists (along with the associated wear-and-tear to the vehicle itself...) and if it is an infamous vehicle of any sort, then you are now the go-to guy for any history that the car had. Cedar Fair may not have been involved in any way with some of those incidents, but their PR department still has to deal with it. SpikeJones 19:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a hypothetical to complicate things... What would happen in the case of Sea World of Ohio, which no longer exists? It was incorporated into Six Flags, then became part of Geauga Lake, but what used to be Sea World (dolphin tanks, whale shows, etc.) was removed and is now a water park. So while Cedar Fair inherited the former Sea World (eventually), the only relationship they have is that they existed on the same parcel of land. I understand what you're saying: basically, the park itself does not shed its history under new ownership; but from the owner's point of view, their company does not gain a new company history with said park. Maybe it would be helpful to include in each incident report what the park was actually called at the time the event occurred? (This doesn't really change my example above from last year, with Son of Beast, since Cedar Fair did own Kings Island at that point.) --Birdhombre 03:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a reasonable hypothetical discussion point. Incidents that occurred at Sea World Ohio would initially exist as "Sea World Ohio" on the SF page. If Cedar Fair did not purchase "Sea World Ohio" because SWO completely ceased to exist under SF's reign then the SWO entry stays with SF... but items that occur at the SF-named waterpark that transferred over to Cedar Fair would move to the Cedar Fair page. Cedar Fair didn't purchase SWO, they purchased the water park -- treat those entities as two completely different parks. SpikeJones 03:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it would be much clearer to place a ride incident on the main page for each ride, noting its ownership at the time. Under the current set up, every time a park is sold the incident pages are going to have to be updated. And what would happen to a park selling a ride to another park, perhaps even never operating it on its own? In a case like that the only way I see the current structure working would be to fracture the page into pieces. At the very least, if no other change is made then I think it's critical to point out that these incidents happened before Cedar Fair owned the park, otherwise it would be far too easy for someone to assume otherwise and wrongly impugn Cedar Fair's safety record. Crowdes 00:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Placing incidents on each ride's page is problematic as not every ride that has had an incident has a WP page (or is necessarily notable enough to warrant an individual page). As for "every time a park is sold...", that's not an issue as it's not as if parks are sold every day and we deal with those types of changes on WP all the time. Regarding your comment about selling the ride -- the incident stays with the park, not with the ride, as the incident happened at a particular park. Regarding your comment about a ride operated by someone other than the park (such as this past weekend's Playland incident as the ride was contracted from an outside firm), the incident stays with the park as well. I recognize your point regarding somebody assuming that Cedar Fair was directly involved with ALL incidents that are listed (as opposed to only those that have happened directly under Cedar Fair's watchful eye), but that's why we are diligent about listing all references and dates for the enduser to see the details for themselves (we're only writing summaries here). Anybody doing proper research should reference the park's individual pages and will see that the parks had multiple owners over different time periods. That type of information is more appropriate for the parks' pages rather than here. SpikeJones 02:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this exact scenario has played out in this article. Following what you said, it would seem the Baywatch ski show would best fit under the Six Flags incidents page. Six Flags inherited most of the physical infrastructure of SeaWorld Ohio and operated it as a very similar park, even though they had to bring in their own animals. But Cedar Fair never operated a marine life park on that property, so it's curious to say this incident happened "at a Cedar Fair park." I guess you could claim they owned it for a few months until construction began on Wildwater Kingdom, but it was never open to the public as anything resembling SeaWorld. Or, you could claim that because Six Flags combined everything into one admission price, anything that happened at either park became part of a single history. But to give a different example, suppose there was a significant baseball fight during a game at Metropolitan Stadium. The stadium was torn down, and Mall of America was built there. Would you claim that the incident happened "at a Triple Five Group mall"? --172.77.121.89 (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, your analogy isn't a good one. The incident in your scenario would have occurred at a venue that no longer exists. So no, in that situation, it would not be proper to tie the incident to the company that built the mall in the former staduim's location. In amusement parks that simply transfer ownership, it is easier to keep everything in one spot. This has nothing to do with the owner, but has everything to do with the park itself. Let's imagine a scenario in which a park changes ownership three times, and during each period of ownership, a single incident occurred. Readers are often looking for a list of incidents at a given park, and if we were to follow the proposal above, that would mean all three incidents would be placed in different articles, because a few editors are concerned about tarnishing the brand of the current owner. However, that would do most readers a disservice, having to navigate three different articles to gather that information. I don't think it's necessary to separate them out. To say an incident "happened at a Cedar Fair park" is different than saying it "happened while owned by Cedar Fair". The title does not suggest that, nor should we. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant the Mall of America example isn't the best. In any case, my comment wasn't about who was to "blame" for the incident. The only relationship between SeaWorld Ohio and Cedar Fair is they both had entertainment-related facilities on the same plot of land. Cedar Fair never operated anything remotely resembling SeaWorld on that property. They tore down the vast majority of SeaWorld and built a water park in its place. The last operator of a marine life park on that property was Six Flags. If the argument is that both sides of the lake inherited each others' history when it became Six Flags Worlds of Adventure, and therefore Wildwater Kingdom now inherits the history of both sides of the lake, then we should at least change the subheading on this page to Wildwater Kingdom, the current name of the remaining park. --172.77.151.114 (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timber Wolf[edit]

Should it be noted that the accident occured under the Hunt midwest ownership. Also I will also like to have another accident added to the this coaster. A think it occured in 1990 where the station brakes failed and two trains hit each other in the station. Natural number is e 18:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this [2] but could the source be accptable. I'm going to check the kansas city newspaper Natural number is e 18:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid source if there was an accident in 1990. All it does is support the statement of someone thinking there was an accident, but it has no 3rd-party verifiable (preferably in the news) info.SpikeJones 20:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I thought. I know this occured just can't find any proof Natural number is e 20:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a relaibale source here. Go down to march 31. It appears the site is this college Capital University. I won't add any thing till I get the green light. Natural number is e 21:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info on Capital U site still lacks reliable references. News articles are preferred over generic lists of coaster accidents that can't be confirmed.SpikeJones 03:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it "worlds%20of%20fun"%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(timber%20wolf%20"worlds%20of%20fun")&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no&s_trackval= Wichita Eagle. You will have to pay to read the full article but that should be enough to list the accident in my opinion. Natural number is e 16:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats missed up Natural number is e 16:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can isolate the Wichita Eagle link to just the abstract that contains the "35 INJURED AT WORLDS OF FUN" headline and opening paragraph (without the other news items), that would be best. When you make the citation, be sure to include original publication date, and indicate that the link is just an abstract (as one of the references on one of the other Incidents pages does). Thanks for doing the research.SpikeJones 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is only a Wikipedia Guideline to avoid pay to view articles if possible. In this case here its probably not possible to get them unless you go to a library. Therefore these sources are published and can be viewed if someone wants to verify. Anyway the Wichita Eagle has 2 articles of this incident that I found searching their archive and Google. One is dated April 25th 1990 and is posted at [3] It mentions when the Timber Wolf Reopened from the Incident and what caused it. The other article is posted here at [4] and its the breaking story about 35 people being injured on Timber Wolf becasue of the accident and was posted the day after the incident, the injury count here may be vague because of the story was breaking then and errors do happen, I think the later article that states the rider injuries would be the count that should be posted in the article. Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 04:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Article from the Denver Post Newspaper Dated in sept 6th 1996 states 48 injuries and also states the computer block system on the ride had its memory erased from a Lightning Strike near the end of the 1989 season. It seems to quote that one sorce above that seems to be unreliable in a Weekly World News style. I think I'll stick with the count of 35. Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 05:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have added the 1990 section per the sources from the Wichita Eagle. If someone finds a free article that is reliable please post it here, otherwise this is all we have that was deem reliable for this incident. Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 05:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recent Great Barrier Reef drowning[edit]

Park Officials said that there were six lifeguards in the wave pool,but the victims mother said that it was only four lifeguards in the pool.Well,on to my point... An article said that the 4-Year old boy was left unattendent in 2-feet deep,how the hell can nobody see that boy,well I mmaybe have an explanation!He was just a small boy,his older sister said he had been underwater a long time,of course the lifeguards couldn`t see him in that far from the pool,they can``t see the boy below the surface!The fault was actually the mother herself!She shouldn`t have left the boy in 2-feet deep!Maybe the boy had come to a 3-feet deep so he couldn`t reach the surface becuse he couldn`t swim!And the mother was just sitting there without watching him,how stupid could she be?!Silverpark 11:30 15 July 2007 (UTC)

WP is not a place for commentary, opinion, finger-pointing, or conjecture. The summary in the article merely states the known facts of the situation. If you have concerns about this specific incident, I'm sure there are websites where such conversations are talking place. SpikeJones 14:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents at Cedar Fair Parks[edit]

Why is the incidents at "before Paramount Parks" that occured before Cedar Fair buyed the parks listed in this article?Silverpark 11:30 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As stated here and in other discussion pages, it has to do with the fact that you can't separate an incident from a park's history, and since the park is currently owned by Cedar Fair, then incidents that occur at that park fall here. Anyone who contacts the park now for information relating to a previous incident will be put in contact with Cedar Fair PR or management. SpikeJones 15:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wildcat cedar point[edit]

i remember i was on the wild cat once and i bumped my head off one of its tracks next to it, has this happend to anyone else (ps, i slightly bumped my head, it only hurt for a second.)--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only notable incidents that have been covered in the mainstream media are posted here. You may want to find a Cedar Point fansite where you can discuss your incident with others. SpikeJones (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

including/excluding victim names[edit]

Discussion on this topic has been renewed. If you are interested in participating, please join the conversation at Talk:Incidents_at_SeaWorld_parks#RFC:_including_or_excluding_victim_names. SpikeJones (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Incidents_at_SeaWorld_parks/Archive_1#RFC:_including_or_excluding_victim_names -- Zanimum (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perilous Plunge[edit]

I removed this incident from the article page because it was overshadowning the rest of the article. At the same time, there was very little sourcing to back up a lot of the details being ascribed to the incident. No sourcing provided confirmed the woman's size contributed to the incident; the Los Angeles Times article, written two days after it occurred, simply stated the woman somehow slipped out of the restraint. I couldn't figure out why people were using the ErgoWeb article both here and there, because even the author of the piece stated he would only be speculating as to any cause. If a later article indicates final contributing factors, it needs to be added, of course. --McDoob AU 93 15:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source for new incident[edit]

http://www.kctv5.com/story/26137906/mom-says-son-got-concussion-on-worlds-of-fun-roller-coaster

How do I add this source? 65.26.80.144 (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raging Wolf Bobs[edit]

I removed the claim that the coaster was on fire during the accident. I can find nothing online outside of Wikipedia that makes that claim, and it honestly doesn't make sense. Why would a rollback cause the coaster to catch on fire? I left the citation needed notice, because I don't know how to properly code citations on Wikipedia, but here are the two decent(ish) sources I was able to find: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/06/22/fox-facts-recent-amusement-park-accidents/ http://www.freewebs.com/ridemaster1/rideaccidents.htm For the second link, the article is roughly 1/3 of the way down the page. It probably isn't a good source at all, but it at least says that nobody on the ride was injured. I think maybe it's just been too long to find decent sources online about such a minor incident. --66.4.230.1 (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Controversial or potentially sensational information should always have a reliable source backing it up. If it can't be found, it can be removed and put back when a reliable source is located. There is no deadline or rush to get it right immediately. --McDoob AU93 16:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fury235[edit]

Let's keep an eye on this -- multiple closings in a short time, no definition of what the issue is.... SpikeJones (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to keep an eye on. The ride stops for a few moments and then restarts. Either an over-sensitive sensor or an e-stop triggered by an attendant seeing a rider with a camera or other loose article in hand. Charlotte media must be bored. --McDoob AU93 21:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Incidents at Cedar Fair parks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incident sourcing[edit]

I've looked at the first three parks in the list and two of them were riddled with incidents that were either unsourced completely or sourced to RideAccidents.com. RideAccidents is hardly a reliable source, although there are instances where it uses a news article for a source. If that is the case, RA should be bypassed and the proper news article should be linked instead. --McDoob AU93 19:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Incidents at Cedar Fair parks. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 16:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Incidents at Cedar Fair parks. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 06:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Incidents at Cedar Fair parks. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 21:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Incidents at Cedar Fair parks. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 08:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added Some Stuff on Kings Island[edit]

Hello. I just tidied and corrected some stuff in the Kings Island section. Some incorrect stuff and some things needed to be more specific. -E.P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.117.217 (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Incidents at Cedar Fair parks. 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/20120101134450/http://www.rideaccidents.com/1999.html to http://www.rideaccidents.com/1999.html

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 15:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced incidents[edit]

Sources needed: There are several unsourced incidents in this page, and in keeping with verifiability I will tag those incidents as citation needed, and if they have not been sourced in 2 weeks and/or there are no objections, I will remove said incidents.

Citations added: I decided to take some time myself and add the citations needed. I am not sure how reliable 'Ultimate Roller Coaster' is, or even 'Amusement Safety Organization' for that matter. They are the only sites with corroborating information for some of these incidents (along with a few forums that center around thrill rides, which is obviously not included), although they have no references themselves to more credible news agencies. That being said some of these were almost two decades ago, so I will give the benefit of the doubt unless another editor feels that they are unreliable and wishes to remove them. If that is the case, please remove the entire incident and not just the citation attached to it.

Thank you :)

DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 21:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the incident under the White Water Landing at Dorney Park, by the way. I tagged it for citation back in November 2017 and it has since remained unsourced in both this article and White Water Landing (Dorney Park) since the addition of the tag. It was the only incident without a citation that I was unable to find any supporting articles or even passing mentions of. In fact, I have found zero incident history for this attraction since it opened. If someone finds a source feel free to revert the edit and add the correct citation. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 00:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Country Safari[edit]

There is no evidence in the Warren County Sheriff's Office case file that John McCann was attacked after deliberately urinating on the lions. McCann was defecating on the ground, and the most likely scenario is that he was unaware there were lions where he was until too late. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1304:89B7:D9A8:41D9:B05F:DDF9 (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: CRISIS COMMUNICATION[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Knkmunoz (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Knkmunoz (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damage to Fury 325[edit]

Nobody was injured, but then, other non-injurious incidents are reported here. Is the breakage and subsequent shutdown of the Fury 325 worthy of an entry? (Venothyl) 01:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Six flags duo[edit]

What do we do with this page now that the two merged. I don’t think they should merge pages but there should be something mentioning the merger. I had it in the lead until someone removed it. Eg224 (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait until the corporate merger is complete before mentioning it. The merger has been announced, but the new company has not been formed as of yet.

Anyway, I would keep the actual pages separate. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should Fury of The Nile Be Removed[edit]

Theirs only one citation for the Ride accident but The del moines register do not list any other sources so Should It be Removed? ElectricEel150 (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many News articles don't cite sources. There are other sources where this incident is talked about other than just the Del Moines Register. I would say no, it should not be removed. Dobblesteintalk 16:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point ElectricEel150 (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]