Talk:Incidents at Six Flags parks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Amusement Parks / Roller Coasters / Six Flags (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Roller Coasters task force (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Six Flags task force (marked as High-importance).
 

Lightning Loops[edit]

This article states the ride was dismantled, that is only partially true. The ride had two idential tracks, one moved to what is now Six Flags America, the other to Frontier City, a Six Flags owned park.

Why was the above comment struck out without explanation? --Rehcsif 14:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Struck as the body of the article was then modified to specifically indicate that the ride was removed entirely from SFGA. The fact that it was shipped to two separate parks afterwards is really something for the Lightning Loops page itself, not here, as there is no direct correlation between the incident and the dismantling. SpikeJones 15:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem, just curious. --Rehcsif 16:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It's all good. SpikeJones 16:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Six Flags Over Georgia "Unnamed Roller Coaster"[edit]

I'm not planning on adding this conjecture to the article, as I have no source to back it up, but the "unnamed roller coaster" in question sounds like the Ninja. It's a steel roller coaster which for some damn reason rides like a wooden one (ie, very shaky), and while it's quite safe, it's been plagued by mechanical problems for a long time. The train gets stuck at the top of the first hill at least once nearly every time I visit the park.

A quick check showed that the Ninja opened fully eight years after the incident in question. Apologies. 69.94.199.146 09:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Six Flags Elephants Suffer[edit]

I don't know how to put the number link to it's website, but here is the link for someone willing to do so: http://helpelephants.com/six_flags.html (22:48, 28 May 2007) 68.126.196.170

Please find unbiased, neutral, 3rd party information sources for incidents to be included on this page. Incident summaries must be written in a neutral encyclopedic tone and include complete citations from WP-approved sources. Thx. SpikeJones 03:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

tower of power, girl's age[edit]

CNN is reporting 16. Everywhere else is saying 13. We'll need to keep an eye on this for a week or so. SpikeJones 03:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The incident was pretty gruesome considering the cable could have struck her neck and taken her head clean off. In any case, this incident clearly deserves a more prominent place on this page and also on the Six Flags Kentuky page, it has to be one of the of not THE most famous theme park incidents now. I know it just happened, but this is a one of a kind thing, this is like something out of a movie, all other theme park incidents have been about people have heart attacks on roller coasters or someone getting molested by a Mickey Mouse costumer. There have been newspaper and news stories as far as Australia and the impact of it all has touched theme parks world wide, Australian theme parks have come into question about their safety and such. Seriously, why has this incident been pushed down to this page? The Six Flags parks almost never make mass media news, not even for their openings, this incident is like the only thing about Six Flags that has been on the news world wide. JayKeaton 11:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. There is a wikinews article that goes more in-depth about this incident from a news perspective (although there is some information here that isn't on the wikinews page, and I would expect vice-versa). Comments about what the cable could have done is speculative from an encyclopedia viewpoint. As far as ranking it on the scale of 'most famous' theme park incidents that don't involve health conditions, it's being dealt with the same way that the flying cleat incident from Disney's Sailing Ship Columbia has been handled. As for page placement, everything is alphabetical. If this incident becomes a larger entity than what it is currently, perhaps it will be dealt with in the same manner as another Six Flags tragedy, the haunted house fire, which has its own page due to the complexities of the lawsuit situation -- but to create its own page now would be a bit premature. SpikeJones 13:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Your right, it did just happen, so it will take time for the aftermath to set in. Although you shouldn't say why could have happened, it is fair to say that the incident was potentially lethal and I would suspect that the Six Flags (again speculation) did not repair or operate the ride under the manufacturers specifications. It was a freak accident, but it was probably Six Flags to blame, so in the future I guess we should watch out for more similar ride closures, more press coverage and in the end lawsuits or settlements. Personally this accident has all the hallmarks of a horror movie so the media is right to give it all the world coverage it's getting, but again, your right, it will take time for content to come. I'll bookmark the page and look for noteworthy news in the future JayKeaton 19:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, thank you for your comment and for your bookmarking for future updates. Yes, all items on the various "incidents" pages are fact-based, cited summaries and do not contain speculation on whose fault the incident was. To say that an incident was "potentially lethal" leans towards opinion or original research (driving a car, for example, is "potentially lethal" in some areas... as is "taking a bath" -- we just don't write that in Wikipedia). The majority of items don't mention blame at all unless there is a specific reason to do so. Also, keep in mind that not every amusement park incident is added to these pages, just those that are significant. An example of something not notable: the people falling off Disney's parking lot tram. If you have any questions before you add something, please let me know either on the appropriate Incident discussion page, or on my Talk Page. SpikeJones 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Darien Lake[edit]

Darien Lake is no longer owned or operated by Six Flags (it was sold earlier this year to CNL Income), so I'm going to remove it from the list. Dragonmage65 13:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. All relevent items have been moved to Incidents at PARC Management parks. SpikeJones 14:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

tower of power, victim's name[edit]

The victim is not in the least notable apart from this (barely notable) incident. Per WP:BLP, we cover the incident, not the person. In particular there is no need for the article to include the victim's name. In six months nobody will remember it anyway, which is why it shouldn't be permanently engraved in an article here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Of the three sentences that make up the incident report, the only items that talk specifically about the victim is her name, age, city, and that she was taken to the hospital in serious condition (understandable, as her feet were severed). The rest of the three sentences all talk specifically about the accident itself. Your comment about "barely notable" is odd, as news agencies around the world have been covering this accident along with this week's disneyland paris incident. Including the victim's name, age at the time, and city of residence is standard formatting for all the incidents listed on these particular pages. As for WP:BLP, it is not against policy to mention the victim's name as part of the incident -- that policy is that we have to prove notability to create an entire page just for the victim, which we are not doing here. The victim is notable in the context of the accident itself, not beyond that. SpikeJones 04:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It's clear from BLP that the victim's notability in this situation is extremely minor, to the point where there is no need to mention her name or any other detailed identifying info. Any other victims listed on this page who are still alive should also be left unnamed. The link to a news article is appropriate, though. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, I strongly disagree with you regarding the listing of the victim's names in each of the various entries (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion). If the person is notable enough to be named as such in each listed citation (or, in the Superman case, named in a statment released by the victim's parents to the press for publication), then including the victim's name in the context of each accident should pass BLP when written in an individual paragraph. Remember, we're not creating an entire article on each individual person (which would, I agree, fail BLP). Further, in the BLP policy it explicitly states that if the citation refers to a person by name, the article can as well. So to me, the names of all victims qualify as being allowed in the article. SpikeJones 05:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
If the victim's name serves no encyclopedic purpose (and I think it's clear here that it does not) then we should not use it. --Tony Sidaway 09:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
From an encyclopedic viewpoint, naming the victim of a significant amusement park accident is certainly a valid purpose. (For cross reference purposes, some conversation is taking place over at User talk:Cyde -- should it all be moved over here?) SpikeJones 13:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
She's a private individual and there is nothing of any significance about her except this event. That is why her name doesn't matter. From the point of view of privacy (hers) the use of her name on a website as popular as this is a big deal, so best to be parsimonious about this. --Tony Sidaway 13:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I presume there's intent to standardize? Obviously, it doesn't make sense to withhold this information when the 12-year-old girl whose toes were crushed on The Cajun Cliffhanger is named, as is the 4-year-old who recovered from injuries sustained on Starfish. Moonriddengirl 17:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is going to be additional adjustments. Wheels have begun in that direction and all the incidents pages will be standardized and refreshed over the next week or two. SpikeJones 13:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
We're not publishing her picture or interviewing her friends about what she's like in school, as the courier-journal did (link purposely not posted, left as an exercise for the student to discover on their own if interested). Yes, there's nothing significant about *her* other than the event, and the paragraph does focus on the event with a mention of the person who was involved and will be indelibly linked. ergo... SpikeJones 14:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
"13-year-old girl" works for me. I don't see why we would want to fix her name into this article. --Tony Sidaway 14:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Footnote[edit]

Footnote #19 seemed to be misplaced, since it purported to support the claim under Superman Tower of Power that "On June 21, 2007, a 13-year-old female[19]" but the reference is to an article dated June 17, 2004 that discusses a fatality at Six Flags Great America. It was the same as reference #6. I removed it before noticing that the article was protected. Sorry! I've never encountered a protected page before. I don't know if it will spontaneously revert or if somebody will come along and revert it, but in the event that it comes back, it will need to be dealt with when the article is open for editing again. Moonriddengirl 16:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Big Bend[edit]

Why is this not mentioned? I do not know any dates, but I do know Big Bend at Six Flags Over Texas, the car flew off the track twice. Afte the second time, it was dismantled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DjDarkslide (talkcontribs) 15:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Before an item is added, you must find an unbiased, 3rd party reference -- preferably a traditional news source -- that contains the appropriate information. Then, feel free to add the section... along with the properly formatted footnote. Regarding this specific incident, if the car merely flew off the track then that is a non-major issue and not notable. If guests were severly injured due to the car flying off the track, then that's a different issue. SpikeJones 18:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

--74.195.85.159 (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)I can think of a few more details for ya. My boyfriends mother was one of the people injured for that ride. I believe in 1972 there was an accident on Big Bend where five people were injured critically, and it was in 1974 when his mother flew out of the train car when it approached the same spot at the last accident. Then again in 1975 there was another malfunction I guess which lead to more law suits then to its closer in 1978> I'm sure there are more details and changes maybe but that's what I know. 11 February 2010

"Act Of God"[edit]

OK, "Act of God" might be accepted as a legal term but Wikipedia abides by a different set of principles, and the last time I checked Wikipedia was a place of multiculturalism and multiethnicity, which implies no direct links or references to any particular god, gods or similarities thereof. Using the term "Act of God" seems to place a higher precedent on those subgroups which follow a religion based on a so-called "God" (note in the singular), which would seem to be exclusive of many other groups. Can we call this "Act of nature" instead? Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"Act of God" is a legal term and used appropriately. Those who question its use here are asked to click over to the linked article and review that page's content and take the use of "God" in the phrase up on that page instead of here. Act of nature is a disambiguation page, and doesn't reflect the definition of the legal aspect of the "act of god" term. SpikeJones (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

SF:GrAdv, Batman and Robin: The Chiller[edit]

I've been spending the last hour trying to find anything more than speculation on various forums about what happened on that ride. What I do know to be fact, is that there was one incident where the Robin train was declared a total loss, and the Batman train was repainted and used on the Robin side. This may or may not also have to do with the replacement of the zero-G roll. I also know to be fact that there was another incident which lead to the permanent closure and subsequent dismantlement of the ride.

Beyond that, I can't find any facts. Anyone know / have a credible source of what happened on this ride on these two separate incidents? Drumz0rz (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad URL references[edit]

The majority of links in this article are bad. Fix them.

Major omission: Magic Mountain death on Shockwave[edit]

It was MM's original standing rollercoaster, opening in the 80s, but some guy got out of the harness and fell to his doom. It was all the news and the park soon got rid of the ride and the space became Viper. I'd do the research and add it but I'm on my phone typing this. --166.205.5.8 (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google news search through the 80's for "magic mountain" and "shockwave" does not return any results indicating that an incident occurred at that park. Please find the proper news citations and we can add the info if it is available and notable. SpikeJones (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Kentucky Kingdom Starchaser Incident[edit]

I removed this due to the fact that it occurred before Six Flags bought Kentucky Kingdom. I saw that a user had already removed this, and then another restored it with "six flags inherited the park and all its incidents." This makes no sense to me. The corporation Six Flags had nothing to do with this incident and I believe the Star Chaser was dismantled before Six Flags had ownership. To list it is misinformation. It would be like listing the pyramids as being something built by Mubarak's Egypt. He became leader, so he inherited all of the prior events? No, that is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntbisme (talkcontribs) 18:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've put the section back so it now reads "On July 26, 1994, (prior to Six Flags ownership) five ...". Essentially, all incidents that have occurred at the park are included here regardless of ownership at the time. Yes, Six Flags didn't own the park at the time and could not be held responsible for the incident, however, the incident did occur at Kentucky Kingdom - the same park Six Flags ended up buying. If the deal with Kentucky Kingdom goes through and the park operates separate from Six Flags again this whole section should probably be moved to the incidents at independent parks article. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Six Flags Great America[edit]

I removed the following unreferenced material: " == Little Dipper (previously located at Kiddie Land, Melrose Park, Illinois) Closed Park ==Subscript textSubscript text On June 1st, 2013, the little dipper got stuck on the lift hill for nearly an hour. Nobody was injured." Secondly, not that I'm a morbid person, but the fact that it was stuck and didn't result in injuries doesn't really seem notable to me. Any thoughts? Bob305 (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree. Roller coasters stop on lift hills all the time. This is a non-notable event. --McDoobAU93 00:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

BS on Texas Giant[edit]

The coaster has a hydraulic restraint system, so there is NO CLICK.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.167.219 (talkcontribs) 01:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

While that is well-known to the coaster community, our standard is reliable sources, not personal knowledge. If we can find a source that makes that statement in reference to this incident, then we can add it. Until then, even a source stating the ride has them would be considered original synthesis, which also is not permitted. --McDoobAU93 05:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Another perspective to consider is that we are attributing the comment to an eyewitness. It is not being stated as an absolute fact, and therefore it may or may not be accurate. Readers understand that. This is a developing story that will yield more information and analysis over time. The content we include needs to come from reliable sources, as McDoob points out. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Skunk, Skunk bo Bunk[edit]

Thoughts on whether this week's rabid skunk attack is a noteworthy incident? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/02/mass-officials-warn-of-rabid-skunk-at-six-flags/2614213/ "Health officials are urging anyone who may have come in contact with a skunk at the theme park to contact the state health department". I'm leaning towards "no", but we've included other animal-bites-person incidents before. Does rabies qualify? SpikeJones (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Also leaning no, unless it is shown that the skunks were the property of the park, which is highly unlikely. --McDoobAU93 05:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)