Jump to content

Talk:Alton Towers/Archive 2

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

Rubber dinghy rapids, bro!

[edit]

We need at least some mention of this ride and that it was Waj's visualization of heaven in Four Lions (2010). Rubber dinghy rapids, bro! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.77.210 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I would like to request that ThemeParks-UK ([1]) is added as an external link to the Alton Towers page on Wikipedia, according to the guidelines for external links websites that provide meaningful, relevant, neutral and accurate material should be considered.

Established in 2000, the ThemeParks-UK website has been providing an independent guide to the UK's theme parks for over 6 years. It enables visitors to view a wide range of information and images covering 5 of the UK's top theme parks all on one easy to use website: Alton Towers, Thorpe Park, Chessington World of Adventures, Drayton Manor and Legoland Windsor.

Although ThemeParks-UK is not operated or funded by the parks that it features, due to the close relationship with the parks own management it always has the latest and most accurate information. In order to offer visitors more than the parks own websites ThemeParks-UK provides extra features such as opinion polls and the opportunity to have their own reviews and photos added.

During its time online, ThemeParks-UK has become a recommended website of the tourist boards VisitBritain and EnjoyEngland. It has become popular both in the UK and internationally, been featured in the press (Daily Echo), a national computer magazine (Web User) and has been included in the official magazine of the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions (Fun World).

Xtraterrestrial 22:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

looks good, appears to be impartial and independent, and has some good info on there. I reckon it's worthy. camelworks(Mclowes) 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be quite a few fan-site links in the External Links section of this article, but it was problematic as there were frequent edits by various anonymous users to bump their preferred site to the top of the list, or even remove links to sites they disliked. In the end they were all removed, which fixed the problem, even if it wasn't the ideal solution. But as long as people can be responsible with this section, I don't see why unofficial site links can't be added - my site is Alton Towers Almanac, I feel it's worthy of a link, but I'm wary of a repeat of the earlier situation I described, hence why I've kept links to ATA off the article.
Dan Kett 07:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logos

[edit]

Since both logos are practically identical can fair use really be justified on the pre-2008 logo? Million_Moments (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours vs Fact

[edit]

Just reading down the page, there seems to be a lot of rumours (without sources) integrated into the main article. I'm just wondering whether moving them to a dedicated 'Rumours' section might be an idea, as viewers of the page might not pick up that they're rumours and misinterpret them as fact. Thoughts? Mike1901 (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what alton towers is

[edit]

alton towers is a theme park and its not to far away from the uk so its pretty a place where many can enjoy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.196.255 (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most Visited In The UK?

[edit]

The reference on the sentence immediately after the one asserting "It attracts around 2.8 million visitors per year making it the most visited theme park in the United Kingdom." actually shows that Blackpool Pleasure Beach attracted 5.5 million visitors in 2007 versus Alton Towers' 2.4 million. Is there a more recent statistic that places a) the number at 2.8 million and b) it above Pleasure Beach? CoW mAnX (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Area Timeline

[edit]

The timelin is incorrect, as it states that Mutiny Bay was introduced in 2009. It was in fact opened in 2008. Can somebody correct it? I am not able to do it. Thanks.Woombamillio (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Themeparkgc  Talk  22:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tree line/noise issues.

[edit]

While not near the park, or even living in england, I know for a fact that Alton towers has fairly stringent noise and visual requirements, which is why most of it's rides are below the treeline, and anything that isn't tends to be painted to blend in. This can be seen by a quick look on roller coaster database. Yet, using the find option on my browser, a search for the words "tree", "tree line", "noise", "height", "loud", and "neighbor" only brought up some complains about fireworks and noisy hotel guests. I would figure the unique height restriction would merit a mention. Imascrabblefreak (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate articles

[edit]

IMO the history section is large enough, and with images, to have it's own page called Alton Towers. Concerning the area, the property and its owners.

This page can then become Alton Towers Theme Park, which is its proper name. Then it can all about the rides, facilities of the modern park.

It seems silly to have two thirds of the article about the last 20 years, yet the first 1/3 cover the previous 2000 years!! Just because they concern the same site does not make them the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.4.10 (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I aggree, maybe posting a discussion to seperate the article would be an idea. -Usx9 (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
History of Alton Towers? It could encompass the sections on History, List of past rides and New and proposed attractions with a short summary of these being left in the main article. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The time has come

[edit]

I really do think it is time to split the articles, one concerning the history of the house and gardens, the other regarding the theme park.109.149.208.41 (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors

[edit]

I will now go through the SW7 part of the article, adding citicisation requests and removing any unsourced rumors that I feel are just rediculaus (and yes, I know that lost mispelt!) Mdann52 (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I ACCIDENTALLY THE ROLLERCOASTER TABLE

[edit]

OH GAWD PLEASE FIX THIS AM NOT GOOD WITH WIKIPEDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.67.238 (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lol XD Earflaps (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alton Towers. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 12:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alton Towers. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 07:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alton Towers. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 00:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smiler accident

[edit]

As the page exists today, the Smiler accident which closed the park for some weeks, never happened. Yes, if you click through to the "Incidents" article, it's there. And it's also there if you click through to the Smiler article. But nothing whatsoever in this article. Largely down to user A1t2u3, who has been assiduous in removing such mentions and has done very little else (actually nothing else) on wikipedia. The incident was significant enough to appear in this main article, which in many ways simply reads like a tourist brochure, however inconvenient that may be to Merlin Entertainments and their unsubtle agents. danno_uk 23:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky one - Wikipedia isn't a newspaper and as such all information has got to be encyclopaedic and reliably sourced, whether positive or negative. Personally, I'm of the view that the link to the Incidents article is sufficient, as it contains details of all major incidents, not just the Smiler's - after all, for example, the Runaway Mine Train crash got a significant amount of publicity at the time it happened, so where would you draw the line in terms of incidents mentioned in the main article? Mike1901 (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the fact that this incident caused the entire park to be closed for a week is noteworthy in the main article. As far as I'm aware, none of the other incidents resulted in such an extreme response. On a subjective side, I believe that if I were a general visitor to wikipedia and not an editor, but with some knowledge of the incident, I would find it very odd that it didn't appear in the article and would wonder about wikipedia's neutrality. I have no axe to grind against Alton Towers itself - I very much like the place and have had some great times there - but with my editor hat on this omission seriously bothers me. danno_uk 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A brief summary of the major incidents that occurred at Alton Towers should be mentioned in this article. Then, extensive coverage can continue in the main incidents article. Sections within an article should always contain content; they need more than just a hatnote. Either we add content here, or we move the link to the "See also" section. The "add content" option is preferred. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I would argue that the fact that this incident caused the entire park to be closed for a week is noteworthy in the main article." So it's not noteworthy because of the horrific injuries it caused to some people, just because the park closed for a few weeks? Smells like someone had tickets booked and couldn't go and still hasn't gotten over it... – Dyolf87 (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up this article

[edit]

I've made a change to the opening section of the article to remove information about Early Ride Time. It's an example of the article reading like a visitor's guide rather than being particularly encyclopaedic.

The article is in need of some major restructuring:

  • There's a lot of duplication listing the same rides in different ways (list of rides, ride statistics, descriptions of the themed areas and their rides, 'secret weapon' developments, timeline of rides)
  • We have lists about benign things like restaurants which does not appear to be notable. Whilst an outlet like the Rollercoaster Restaurant is probably notable due to its uniqueness, the article does not provide context for the reader.
  • There's a lot of information about events and Scarefest - which again isn't very notable. Wikipedia seems to be the sole source on former years' attractions.
  • The 'incidents', 'conservation area restrictions' and 'court cases' could be easily consolidated into a 'Controversy and incidents' section (or similar)

I fear that without a major restructure, future edits by other users are going to continue to fragment or duplicate information across the article. JordanHatch (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of rides should remain the main list of rides. I think the ride statistics should be replaced by a list of current and previous recorder holding rides, either with all the listed statistics or more likely the record holding statistic only. The Secret Weapon system is probably worth keeping. The list of food outlets is unlikely to be worth keeping, though the Rollercoaster Restaurant should be notable. It is probably worth keeping the mention of the changeover from franchise agreements to in-house provision for the food outlets. PriceDL (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ride statistics table does not sort correctly.

[edit]

Specifically the height, length and riders per train section are sorting alphabetically not as numbers. Presumably this is because the data is a mixture of numbers and letters. Can this be fixed? 82.17.48.214 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Yes, alphanumeric entries can throw off sorting. You have to use data-sort-type="number" in the column header to make sure it only sorts as numbers. I modified the table, so it should be good now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alton_Towers/Archive_2&oldid=1248824459"