Talk:Kentucky Kingdom

Deluge is already effectively announced

See this blog entry. Information cannot be unpublicized after it already is public. Note that I didn't add it to this article in the first place. But it's silly to "hold it" until it's no longer "confidential". It's already public. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Tower of Power Name

Does anyone know why the name was changed from "Hellevator"? That was such a badass title, and it was the Hellevator for most of my life. Giantrobotbrawl 22:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's because the park couldn't afford a coaster that would be Superman themed. So they decided to name the Hellevator to Superman. And a rumor is going around that the ride may be removed from the park (only Kentucky Kingdom)

Actually, it's because Six Flags wanted to move in a more family friendly direction, and Hellevator was too much of a non Politically Correct name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.227.145 (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Flagging this article as an advertisement

I have flagged this article for reading like an advertisement. In its current incarnation, this article is primarily just a list of fun rides available for the kids. This park made national news recently when an accident on the Superman Tower of Power ride completely severed a girl's feet from the rest of her body. One particular editor has removed multiple attempts by several other editors to directly mention the accident. Instead, the article alludes to the accident in the vaguest possible way by simply saying that the ride was "involved in a notable accident" without any actual mention of what happened. While this park may be well-known locally for all the fun rides, it is nationally-known for the accident. Listing all the fun rides while deleting any negative information makes this article just an online advertisement. --JHP 15:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It does need mentioning. There have been enough articles in the Curious-Urinal about this to do a section on it.--Bedford 15:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This article does indeed point to the incidents article that lays out significant information about this incident. I'm the last person to defend companies from negative encyclopedic content, but apparently, in cases like this, incident information has been set aside for its own article. However, you may be correct in that this specific incident was especially notable and deserves coverage here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I am probably the one that JHP is mentioning as "one particular editor", as I have tried to be diligent in not allowing incident information to appear in multiple places in Wikipedia whenever possible and to link to the appropriate Incidents article as necessary. Single source of reference, and all that. This way, those who are interested in amusement park incident(s) can see all the information in once place without seeing conflicting information that may or may not be due to overzealous or non-thorough editors. They also can see all other related incident information for that park, that company, or other parks and organizations as well. The incident is mentioned briefly in this article, just as similar incidents are mentioned in their own particular park or attraction articles. All done in a consistent, non-biased manner appropriate for an encyclopedia that does not elevate this incident as more (or less) important as any other tragedy where someone suffered. As for this article reading as an advertisement, all I can do is recommend looking at other park articles that you feel are not written as a promotion piece and try to emulate those here. SpikeJones 18:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a more informative (yet short) summary of the incident here would suffice, with fuller coverage in the incidents article? Otherwise, people will continue to assert that information is being hidden. Some duplication between this and the incidents article isn't un-wiki -- in fact, it's normal. Avoiding all possible duplication is not a policy. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

SpikeJones, please point us to a Wikipedia policy or guideline that says there should be a single source of reference. I don't believe there is one. The information pertains to this particular park, so it should be at least be briefly explained in this particular article. Quite often what editors do is have a summary in one article that then points to another article that contains more detail. However, what we have in this article is not even a summary. It's just a vague reference. It contains no specific information whatsoever. I provided a very clear, informative, one-sentence summary of what happened. It was backed up by a reference and contained a link to the "Incidents" article. You deleted it. --JHP 02:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My key point: Mentioning something is not a suitable substitute for summarizing something. --JHP 02:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to concur with an informative one-sentence summary and pointing to the "incidents" article. There's no question in my mind that this is a hyper-notable incident, just due to its details alone, and indeed, the coverage is national, as Six Flags had to shut down all its tower rides at all its parks. I would also recommend adding an HTML comment that advises editors not to expand the summary into greater detail. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Stevietheman's suggestion is the most appropriate to implement. JHP, if you're talking about the 14:54, 27 June 2007 24.209.30.113 (edit #141014976) entry that I reverted, it is because the content was taken directly from the Incidents page without any regard for either (a) including the references themselves, or (b) not following the WP:BLP policy that was taking place over on that page regarding this specific incident. If you're talking about the 22:32, 2 July 2007 Realkyhick (edit #142152748) entry that I reverted, it's because the entry contained information that was already outdated by information that was updated in the Incidents page, and the link to the Incidents page was also removed by Realkyhick at that time. If you're talking about your edit #147620955 from the 29th, that was just a copy of the same info from the Incidents page, poorly included, and badly placed in the article -- while we all agree that there should be some mention of the incident, including it in the intro section isn't really appropriate either, especially as it (in essence) duplicated information that was posted further down the page. Yes, I know that you'll disagree with the "in essence" part, but go with me on the concept. As for an official WP policy, there are guidelines listed in the help section on what makes a good article; I like to think that the Incidents articles fall under WP:BETTER#Articles_covering_subtopics. SpikeJones 04:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

SpikeJones, regarding my edit, it was not poorly placed. In fact, its placement was completely consistent with WP:BETTER#The_rest_of_the_lead_section, which states:

"If the article is long enough for the lead section to contain several paragraphs, then the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies, if there are any."

Yes, it was a copy of the first sentence from the Incidents page, but that's because the first sentence made a good summary. And, no, it was not a duplicate of what was posted further down in the article, because what appeared further down provided no information about what happened. Again there is a distinct difference between mentioning something and summarizing something. --JHP 01:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

JHP, I believe you've gotten off your original discussion topic of this article reading like an advertisement for SFKK. I say this as your only suggestion/complaint is about the tragic incident and that you felt it should be in the lead paragraph. That said, you quoted the WP page that says "If the article is long enough for the lead section to contain several paragraphs, then the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is." This article is about SFKK (its rides, its shows, attraction history, ownership changes, etc). A single incident that occured at the park, when placed in the opening paragraph, implies that this page is about that incident at the park... when the article should be about much more than that. (For example, I recommend using the rather complete SF Great Adventure article as a base here, but you may like other parks' articles better.) I'm more than happy to continue discussing making improvements to the article with you, but I feel that if we continue harping on the placement of this one incident in the article that we may bore the other editors. That said, as I've pointed out to others, if you have specific SF or other amusement park articles in mind that are written well that you would like to emulate here, please feel free to share them with us so the SFKK article can be brought up to proper WP standards. Cheers! SpikeJones 03:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved the mention of the incident up in the article, instead of hiding it down in the ride list. The incident made national headlines for several days, and should be more prominent than it was before. Realkyhick 18:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Chang

Anonymous editors have been revising the article to indicate an impending closure of Chang. I've been reverting this each time I see it because no source has been cited. I've seen the rumors, too, but a quick search of the websites for local newspapers and local TV stations does not hit any stories regarding the park, and as these sites are considered more reliable and verifiable than a rumor website. Please provide a source when/if adding this back. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC) it was basically the most extreme ride in the park —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.17.29 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Changed Article

I changed it to say that the rides are staying i have sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.135.13.34 (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to restore to "Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom"

According to the latest report, Bluegrass Boardwalk is no longer after the withdrawl of the Koch family. I propose that this article be moved back to Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom, the location it was at before Ed Hart and the Koch family proposed their individual takeovers. This would require all links to the article to be updated. I thought I would propose it to gauge a consensus before going through WP:RM. Themeparkgc  Talk  05:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Six Flags has had no connection to the park since 2009, so revising it to that would be factually incorrect; when they left, the local press started referring to it as simply Kentucky Kingdom again. But yes, it certainly shouldn't be Bluegrass Boardwalk anymore. --McDoobAU93 15:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should be changed to just Kentucky Kingdom. Should we restore all the roller coaster articles to what they were before the Koch family?--Astros4477 (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick news flash ... we've had one well-meaning editor move the article unilaterally. In order to prevent this while this discussion is ongoing, I asked for and got temporary move protection for the article for about a week. If we settle on something before then, we can get the page moved or the protection lifted. --McDoobAU93 20:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Bluegrass Boardwalk → Kentucky Kingdom – This should just be Kentucky Kingdom now. Astros4477 (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support – It seems that this place never actually operated under its current article name, and that it apparently never will. Note that there is other discussion in another section of the Talk page that supports this move. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: The actual current article name is Bluegrass Boardwalk, not Kentucky Kingdom / Bluegrass Boardwalk (which is a redirect). —BarrelProof (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    • It needs to be changed to Kentucky Kingdom or Kentucky Kingdom / Bluegrass Boardwalk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingjake123 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support move to just Kentucky Kingdom, with Bluegrass Boardwalk as a redirect in case anyone still searches for that name. --McDoobAU93 03:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I feel Kentucky Kingdom or Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom would be equally suitable names. Themeparkgc  Talk  06:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I suggest not using Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom, because for much of the park's history, Six Flags was not involved – but for all of its history, it has been called Kentucky Kingdom. However, a redirect should be in place from the other name, of course. –BarrelProof (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed ... Six Flags' connection to the park has ended, and it should revert back to its original name, sans "Six Flags". --McDoobAU93 21:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.