Talk:Oakwood Theme Park

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hydro[edit]

UPDATE* - The ride has now been fitted with extra restraints and a new audio system which clearly says: Please fasten your seatbelts and WAIT for a ride operative to lower your shoulder restraint.

Can someone please explain why the above addition was made to the Hydro section of the article? One of the very first things the article states is that there is now a more secure restraint system in operation. I can hardly see how this qualifies as an "*update". I expect someone from the park may have written this in. However as a point of information its serves no real purpose.

There was an accident!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.67.243 (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section of the article has few, if any, citations – please could someone add some citations. Claims that the ride is now more safe may very well be true (I believe Oakwood does have high safety standards, but my personal opinions are irrelevant when editing Wikipedia articles), but they must be substantiated by a reliable source. Who has made these claims? Someone from the park? If so, say who has said that the ride is more safe, when they said it, and give a source.--Novuscarmen (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subtle changes in this section due to bad grammar and choice of words and syntax, it does not detract from what was previously stated on /the page, as all of that is still very much valid. Ryan. 17/08/18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:AE3F:E000:C409:2E25:75E1:E6D1 (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents[edit]

OK, so information about the accident needs to be included, but I don't think it should be put before almost everything else. Lightwater Valley, Flamingo Land Theme Park and Zoo, and Six Flags Great Adventure, as well as the (poor) Lake Compounce article, all mention their respective accidents after discussing the park itself and what it actually consists of. Six Flags Over Texas, however, mentions its accidents at the end of its History section, before its rides, but of the sample of theme park articles that I've looked at, all others mention them later on. Furthermore, all of the above call them "accidents", which is, by and large, what they were.

I'm more than happy to MOVE the incident info over to the Incidents at European parks page, as has been done for most other amusement park accident info. (yes, there would still be a mention here, but the bulk of the content... and references... would be on the Incidents page. Objections? Comments? SpikeJones 02:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact there's an ongoing HSE case against the company because of the company's negligence (that resulted in the death of a girl) I would say was relevant to the main page. It's not history in the sense of it not being something that has concluded. I agree that moving the bulk of the info to Incidents at European parks may be a sensible one for the sake of consistency however. I'll try and bulk out the section with more referenced information. User Robjames18 butchered what was a well written section (although it was slightly lacking in references) with poorly written gibberish, I'm looking to repair some of the damage and update the information.--Nexxxeh (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question to ask is whether the situation warrants anything significantly larger than what is already written. The castle fire at Great Adventure had so much controversy and was really a big deal at the time in the industry that the bulk of the information appears in its own article. Is there really more to what's going on beyond what we have? As long as the references are there, anyone who needs the significant detail could always click through to get it. The fact that it is an ongoing case doesn't warrant anything in-and-of itself. SpikeJones (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the original writeup (my wiki-fu is too poor to figure out who wrote it) that can be seen on the 06:05, 30 January 2008 version contains vastly more information that is, for the most part, relevant to the company and the park as a whole, such as the impact it's had on business, how it appears they cut back on safety for profit reasons and their staff training was woefully lacking. It's just the author didn't put in the references, but I've found most of the references to put in. The stuff about the accident itself can stay in the accident page, but I think the company being prosecuted for endangering their customers is something that should be on the main page.--Nexxxeh (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008, comment by James Devereux Webber

I was the author of the original write-up ( 06:05 30 January 2008)on the Hydro accident, as well as much of the rest of the article. Whilst the section was undoubtedly lacking in citations (my technical know-how is limited and I don't have a wikipedia username e.t.c.), I can ensure you that it was, for the most part, based on media reports and not on baseless speculation and opinion. I have been a long term observor and commentator on the ups and downs of Oakwood theme park and do feel this section has been slightly butchered. Perhaps once the HSE action is complete I shall rewrite a condensed and up-to-date version of the account which will hopefully bring some closure to the debate. Email: james.devereux.webber@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.13.53 (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be very careful with your editing. You say I think the company being prosecuted for endangering their customers is something that should be on the main page, but this could be interpreted as having bias and not maintain the neutrality that articles require. The impact on business or a statement that safety cutbacks were done for profit reasons MUST be cited from reliable/verifiable sources specifically or else those statements will be removed. Keep WP:NPOV in mind with what you add. SpikeJones (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a relatively small edit to add relevant, up-to-date verifiable info on the on-going actions of the HSE's case against Oakwood (which I think is relevant to the main page because it related directly to the company that runs the park and the park itself). Why the revert? It's an important extension to the sentence I attached it to, it was fact stated without tone.
reverted as there was no citation provided for the update. SpikeJones (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oakwood death case to be tried in crown court. Pembrokeshire Western Telegraph (2008). Retrieved on 2008-06-16. <-- Yes there was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.186.241 (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, there wasn't. SpikeJones (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry SpikeJones, maybe I'm just being an idiot but as shown in the history page you linked to, my edit is shown as "it will be committed for crown court trial on July 7th 2008[6]." where [6] links to the cited Pembrokeshire Western Telegraph article (that I referred to above which contains the information I posted). How should I have done this? Where have I gone wrong in this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nexxxeh (talk • contribs) 13:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bluestone[edit]

Should something be mentioned about this?

  • What is Bluestone? --Aled D 13:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Park Development[edit]

It would be hugely appreciated if someone could come forward with a comprehensive list of Oakwood's development since it opened in 1987. I have tried my best with the list which I believe is 100% accurate from 1994 onwards, although I am a little more uncertain as to whether the rides prior to 1994 are so accurate (they are possibly out by a year or so). No one seems to have any information on Oakwood’s very early development (for example, when was the Pirate Ship installed?). Oakwood themselves are less than helpful as they make no effort to disseminate information about the park's history.

  • I have also spent some time looking into this but information is less than easy to come-by, I suggest possibly contacting the park management and the local press. --Aled D 13:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craigthomas1 (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC) The Pirate Ship was definitely operation by the late 90's. Also the Assault Course was originally made smaller to make room for Snake River Falls, there were originally 7 (maybe 8) different paths, no7 led to a zip wire which landed where Snake River Falls now stands. The remaining courses were removed to make space for The Bounce a few years later. There was also an indoor children play zone somewhere in the corner where Speed now is. The boating lake used to also feature Canoe's and I remember there was a coin-op shooting range next to Nutty Jake's Gold Mine and the shop. I will try to think if I can remember anything else. I used to visit at least once a year from the late 80's to around 2002.[reply]

Craigthomas1 Actually I meant the early 90's, certainly remember it from about 92's

I'm not sure the information about the park's limited attractions in its early days in the late 1980s is completely accurate. I visited in 1988/89 and remember the boating lake, a children's area with a ball pool (which is now gone) and am sure the bobsleigh and mini golf were there - if not, it was there by the early 1990s. I certainly don't remember it being small. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.170.116 (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

If someone could upload a few more photos for the relevant sections- particularly the Hydro accident- that would also enhance the article a lot. The picture of the police at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3635619.stm]] captures this story very well. The picture of the ambulance at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3630577.stm even more so. With reference to the last one I have given a lot of thought as to whether this would be in good taste. However it is in the public domain and on the BBC news website.


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.121.65 (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Drop in visitor numbers[edit]

In the last paragraph under the heading of 'Hydro accident' there is a sentence claiming Oakwood has suffered a 'significant' drop in visitor numbers. Is anyone able to provide a source for this statement? It is a rather sweeping statement which deserves a citation to be valid. If no citation is found I feel it should be edited or removed. 81.106.139.53 15:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CITATION AS REQUESTED: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4377081.stm

The drop in visitor numbers is very well documented indeed, prompting the Welsh Tourist Board to give Oakwood a grant for targeted leafleting in south Wales. Paddy McNamara (managing director) also commented in the local press on this issue for Oakwood stating that "when Oakwood was hurting Pembrokeshire hurts". I shall try to see if there is archive information for a citation.

Ride descriptions[edit]

The ride descriptions desperately need updating. They are badly written. I don't know enough about the rides. Can anyone help?Jamesb1 23:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently tarted up the ride descriptions section as well as doing a partial re-write. It is a working progress still. JDW 14/11/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.121.154 (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed speculation and discussion of speculation - completely uncited[edit]

I've removed the future rides section, it contained near-pure speculation with not a single citation. Please feel free to add information back if it's information about Oakwood that is verifiable, but the article desperately needs cleanup and removing unsourced information such as this, is I feel, the only way to really get started on it. --ericthefish 16:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to note that it is standard practice amongst enthusiasts of theme parks (who I would reckon are responsible for up to 90% of the material in this article) to speculate to a degree as to future development (although this speculation is often grounded on factual assessments of such things as past indicators and current market trends).

Thus I would disagree with the above assessment. In particular it is an observed fact that the park's development operates on a three year cycle, (although this is not an officially articulated policy) and this cannot reasonably be defined as speculative in nature. Finally there is nothing necessarily wrong in reporting speculation so long as one does not add to it.

JDW 15/11/07

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Lack of Citations[edit]

Please could someone proof this article. It is crying out for more citations, especially where opinions have been expressed, e.g. see the section on the Hydro incident, where an editor has added a claim that the ride is now more safe without any substantiation. Half of the article's information needs a big 'citation needed' sticker branded on top of it. I am sure that most of the information is true and accurate, but prove it to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novuscarmen (talk • contribs) 13:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steepest drop in the UK?[edit]

Speed no longer holds this title, as another UK based theme park, namely Thorpe Park, has a Eurofighter rollercoaster named Saw - The Ride (opened 13th March 2009), which has a 100 degree drop. Speed's is 97 degrees. Speed is still about 15 foot or so higher then Saw so that part should stay. I will remove the outdated statement in a week or so if no one else with greater experience does so first. Thanks Tony1000 (talk)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saw_the_ride

http://www.thorpepark.com/rides-saw.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1000 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oakwood Theme Park. 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oakwood_Theme_Park&oldid=1195605197"