Talk:Haunted Castle (Six Flags Great Adventure)

Links gone bad in section "Questioning the report"

Hey Popartpete, can you repair these? Otherwise the section may end up tagged as unsourced and removed, and I know you don't want that to happen. Happy Christmas, CliffC (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone got busy and fixed them. Excellent.  — Myk Streja ^(who?) 20:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

New Reference

While working on Haunted attraction (simulated), I turned up these references, which may shed some additional light on this article. They are not currently cited in the article, and represent some new, credible research. http://www.nfpa.org/news-and-research/publications/nfpa-journal/2014/may-june-2014/features/the-haunted-castle-revisited and http://www.nfpa.org/news-and-research/publications/nfpa-journal/2014/may-june-2014/features/the-haunted-castle-revisited/spooky-and-safe Oddjob84 (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Here's another: http://www.fireengineering.com/content/dam/fe/online-articles/documents/2014/FE081984HauntedCastleFire.pdf Oddjob84 (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Dayamn, dude! You found some of the links I ended up using. :> NPFA guards its copyright right closely. I will take the steps needed to get it. I want the Haunted Castle image and the map image.  — Myk Streja ^(who?) 20:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The text is pretty good too, particularly the fire spread study they did with modern computer modelling. Interesting. Glad you like the images. They were the best I saw. Oddjob84 (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Found an image of a postcard of the Haunted Castle.  — Myk Streja ^(who?) 06:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You need to see this link, too. The Haunted Castle revisited Never mind.  — Myk Streja ^(who?) 06:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Oddjob84:Go here. Tell me what you think.  — Myk Streja ^(who?) 22:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Myk Streja: Big improvement! This is a good article now. Nice work. Oddjob84 (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Fatalies section commented out

Until such time as reliable sources can be found for those eight teenagers who died in the fire, I have commented the section out. I didn't want to lose what might be good information to someone with no sense of humor. I honestly am not sure the list really adds anything to the article anyway, good sources or not.  — Myk Streja ^(who?) 03:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Myk, the "comment out" code did not have the desired effect on the Article page. It only suppressed the section title, then left the text, blew up the formatting and showed some codes. Per WP:HIDDEN, commenting out only works for small items, they recommend larger ones be placed on a subpage off the Talk page. Since this one isn't that big, I placed it below. Oddjob84 (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Oddjob84: That's strange. I looked at it in preview mode, then again after I saved. <shrug> I probably should have purged the session after the edit. Thanks for saving it.  — Myk Streja ^(who?) 14:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the list altogether from this talk page. Names of the deceased are not typically discussed or mentioned unless they are notable for more than one single event. Also, in this case, the importance of this list to the subject is very questionable and not significant enough for inclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Citation in infobox

@GoneIn60: You mentioned on another page that reference in infoboxes is frowned upon. Well, after watching an edit war over whether the status of an attraction should be closed and only marked as removed with proof, I thought it merited a citation here. Should I leave out the notation anyway? It is mentioned in the lead—and sourced in the main article—that the attraction was removed/replaced. Would that be enough?  — Myk Streja ^(who?) 05:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Myk_Streja, I wouldn't say "frowned upon" necessarily, but in general, they shouldn't be placed in the infobox when possible. Some infobox parameters are set to follow specific rules, meaning that for example if you enter "Defunct" in the status field, it will automatically get changed to "Removed". Parameters can automatically categorize articles as well. When references are specified, then parameters with these special settings may not work. Here, the "Removed" status would auto-categorize the attraction at: Category:Removed amusement attractions. Because there is a citation currently, that auto-cat is no longer occurring automatically. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: Thanks, that helps. I'll remove the reference and let the bots have their way.  — Myk Streja ^(who?) 06:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

1984 incident

The article is being consumed by this incident. Although adequate coverage is needed, and its occurrence is very important to the overall coverage of the attraction, it is consuming almost 2/3 of the article at the present time (by a basic word count, it's 1757 vs 855). That is way too much, and per WP:DUE, we need to trim that down. It should consume, in my opinion, less than 500 words, which would bring it closer to 1/3 of the article – a more acceptable amount.

I'm just notifying those watching this page, and I have no intention to do the trimming myself. If anyone is interested in taking this on, please do. If no one does, I eventually will. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree. This article would not exist, could not rise to the level of notability, but for the fire and its consequences. And by "its consequences" I mean profound changes to both the charity haunt business and the professional themed attraction business nationwide. If not for that, this attraction would be a couple of lines in the Six Flags Great Adventure article. Painful though it is, this article is more important than the amusement park itself. Oddjob84 (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: Having experienced the event myself (I lived about 10 miles from Jackson at the time of the fire; I had several siblings who were there on the day) I have to agree with Oddjob84 to an extent. I felt that there wasn't enough about the attraction itself and started adding meat to the bones. I'm not done with it so don't worry about that side of the article. Where I definitely agree with Oddjob is that the disaster itself is taking up as much space as it needs. I will be tightening up the prose and that may in fact result in a trim, but I won't go in with a cleaver looking to excise for the sake of brevity. I hope you believe that I will continue to improve the article, but I just needed to step back for a week to gain perspective. Or maybe not a whole week.  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 19:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I won't challenge it at this point, but I would suggest taking into consideration the option of renaming the article. If the primary reason it exists is the incident and its aftermath, then the main topic would be the incident itself and not the location in which it occurred. For example, take the The Station nightclub fire and Loveland River House incident. An article does not exist on the venue in which these incidents occurred, because the only thing notable about them that warrants a standalone article are the incidents themselves. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This I agree with. I think this article's reason for notability is the fire, and a title change is probably warranted. Oddjob84 (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The Haunted Castle is notable in and of itself. It's success inspired others to expand on their existing attractions and others to include haunted attractions in their repertoire. As was stated in the article, Despite managements lack of expectations, it turned out to be a moneymaker and a lure for the park. The fire overshadows that, as it should, and it shook the community, both local and national. The attraction and the incident are intertwined: you can't mention the one without the other. I have tried to balance those two elements in this article, but truthfully, the attraction is the fore part of the article. I suppose we could separate them, like conjoined twins, but I think it's best to keep them together under the current title.  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 18:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I realize you're still working on the article, but as it stands now, I'm not seeing a whole lot that would designate the attraction as particularly notable on its own. You mention the claim that it "inspired others", but I'm not seeing this claim and corresponding source in the article. In addition, the notion that it was a "moneymaker and a lure" needs to be properly sourced. I see the claim, but one source in that paragraph is a fan site which should be removed, and the other is a decent magazine article that doesn't support the claim. Personally, I'm having a hard time seeing how a walk-through haunted attraction, assembled from trailers and neglected by the park maintenance-wise, was really all that significant to the park's overall history considering its short six-year run. If the incident is taking up more space than the description of the attraction itself, then clearly the incident is the more important topic. Again, I realize the article is frequently evolving, but that's the way it seems at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Eek! I got that one backward. I meant to say that the fire cast a chill over the business, especially as it related to nonprofits like the JC and March of Dimes, but it did inspire others to take better care of safety. As far as "moneymaker and a lure", if it was in the article like that, I believe you would be right. "Because of its unexpected success, it was decided instead to extend the lease and add it to the list of permanent attractions." "... the Haunted Castle became the park’s largest single-show attraction since its construction." are the properly sourced statements in the article. I would never introduce synthesis into an article. Your deliberate phrasing to present a negative impression of the attraction is your personal opinion. Myself and Oddjob84 feel otherwise. Are you suggesting that you are going to exercise some superior authority and discard our activities? You think the article is not notable. I disagree. Now what?  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 17:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I think sometimes tone gets lost in translation. I'm not taking a negative stance here at all, and I do not have a negative opinion of the attraction. I'm sorry you took it that way. I was simply suggesting that we take into consideration that a name change is warranted, and it appears Oddjob84 agreed that it might be. The incident is definitely notable, and the article should remain in some form, but I'm starting to question whether the ride itself is notable. If it isn't, then a name change would become a mandatory move as opposed to an optional one.

Please explain what source supports the claim that its success was unexpected or that it was even successful to begin with? What are your thoughts about the fan site that is still being cited in the article? Do you agree that should be removed? --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I got defensive. My apologies. However, I am willing defend the sources based on a couple of things. The GA History site is maintained not so much as a fan site, although I will admit they use a flashy interface, but as a site about something people are interested in. The label "fan site" brings up torrid images of sensational activities with a severe slant towards the subject. It's about a series of popular amusement parks run by a single entity (Six Flags) that have had an impact similar to the Disney parks. At one time, Six Flags Great Adventure was giving Disneyland a run for the money. It is my opinion that GA History is a reliable source. The prose is not encyclopedic, but it is factual, needing only neutralizing to be useful. It was one of the sources for the two statements above. The other source is an article in an online magazine that was about crisis management. An esoteric subject, but pertinent all the same. It supports the first source. During interviews, Joe Costal was told by park employees that the management did not give the attraction due consideration as anything more than a curiousity.

As for Oddjob84's remark above... I don't know what to say. I had thought he agreed with me about keeping the article the way it is. As for the attraction not being notable, I disagree. I guess that's not too obvious. But let's be honest here, there are a whole slew of articles about various amusement attractions that are on par with this one, and they are not being challenged. Please don't ask me to list them. I got involved with the Alyssa Nutter problem and ended up checking on over a hundred articles. That's how I got involved with this one. I think people are allowing the fire to overshadow the attraction. They are irrevocably intertwined, and we can't have one without the other. But the Haunted Castle came first. If you still feel you need to change the name, I want an RfC about it. (This feels a bit like a union negotiation.)  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 03:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond. The GA history site's main page clearly states: "PLEASE NOTE: This is an unofficial Great Adventure fan site." Fan sites are typically considered a form of user-generated content as explained at WP:USERGENERATED. Sometimes exceptions are made, but it is rare when that happens. I would suggest asking for other editor opinions at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to see if it qualifies. Personally, I don't think it does, but I would be willing to accept whatever consensus forms there as long as it's a clear one.

Also keep in mind that if the entire paragraph isn't supported by the sources listed at the end of the paragraph, then they should be moved to the sentence(s) they support. So for the paragraph that begins with. "The management of Great Adventure hadn't expected the success of the attraction...", I would suggest placing a citation at the end of each sentence, since this material is being challenged. The last sentence in particular that calls it an "unexpected success" does not appear to have support from the HA Magazine source.

We can worry about a title change later after we sort through these issues first. Let's see how much material covering the ride remains. If a move is needed, we can always submit a move request at WP:RM, which is similar to an RfC. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Saw the comment here and well here's the thing. I don't even recall how or why I ended up at an article I don't really have any interest in, but you can bet the feedback I've provided above addresses reasonable concerns. If your aim is to eventually reach GA or FA status, you can choose to tackle them now or be asked to tackle them later. I find it odd you'd rather not have that feedback, unless perhaps your goal is to keep the article on the down low. In any case, I'll back off. It's not worth fussing over. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

GoneIn60 If you read the comment, then you saw the compliment. You are the worthy opponent and I dread who might take your place. Just because I 'hoped' you would back off didn't mean I'd stoop to trying to get you to do so. That being said, I understand about getting drawn in, but that's the whole point of being a behind the scenes editor, isn't it? To do some random good and keep the standards? If you want to debate with me the relative merits of this article, I welcome the challenge, as long as we both can keep good manners (gonna be tough for me, I'm a grumpy old man). Are we good?  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 22:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Myk Streja and GoneIn60:As I said elsewhere, I do think the three of us agree at the 90%+ level. Please forgive me, but I think the discussion on the reliability of the one source is a sideshow. The issue is: Is the article Haunted Castle (Six Flags Great Adventure) notable because 1) the venue is notable by itself; 2) the venue is notable only because of the fire; 3) both; 4) neither?

Completely independent of the usefulness of the source: the article is notable. Cross off #4. For me, the venue is notable only because of the fire, crossing off #1 and #3. From reading this article, and particularly, from spending a month researching Haunted attraction (simulated)#History, it seems clear to me this attraction, in and of itself, would not ordinarily rate more than a couple of lines' mention in the parent article Six Flags Great Adventure. The haunted house itself was built cookie-cutter style by a vendor. The park apparently paid it little heed. It is in no way comparable to Disney's Haunted Mansion or Knotts Scary Farm except for the fire. The fire changed everything for haunted attractions nationwide, and almost overnight. The fire is still studied today, 30+ years later. Even the NFPA recently re-studied the fire.

For me, the above conclusion brings us to the only thing unresolved: should the article be re-named, or left with the present title? This, I think, is what we ought to be discussing. Oddjob84 (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with many of these points, but I must point out that the questionable source has been cited seven times and is responsible for a majority of the article that doesn't cover the fire. Its removal would be very detrimental to the article's layout. We think its lopsided now with the coverage over the fire, imagine how much worse it would be. So while a title change is likely to be at the center of the next discussion, this source's future will play a role in how that discussion plays out. If it's canned, material will get cut way down and a title change will be all but a certainty. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oddjob84 and GoneIn60: If the source fails, then I won't have a choice, the article will then become all about the fire and will need to be renamed. If that happens I would like to be the one to take the article apart and move it to the new name. If the source passes, I will submit for RM for the whole article. If the source passes, I will argue to keep it, I'm sure I've been clear about that. I won't argue about it now, this is not the time or place, I just want you guys to know it's not about you, it's about the article.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 19:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Myk Streja and GoneIn60: I would not be in favor of deleting the information about the attraction generally. Having opened the door for the article's notability with the fire, the article badly needs context and balance, which the general background provides. As I think I expressed on the Noticeboard page, what is a usable source is somewhat fluid. I will come down on the side of keeping the source if it comes to it, however, the devil is in the details. What statements, exactly, can be reasonably supported with this source? I'd like to see specifics for each instance, rather than a binary yes or no. Oddjob84 (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

GreatAdventureHistory.com

@Oddjob84 and GoneIn60: We three seem to be the only ones with any real interest in this article, so I'll let you both know: I put the above source up for consideration at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Great_Adventure_History. Please take the time to voice your opinion on the reliability of the source. Thanks guys.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 18:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Myk Streja and GoneIn60: Answered at the noticeboard and above. Oddjob84 (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)