Talk:Haunted Castle (Six Flags Great Adventure)

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)

@Oddjob84: Don't ask much, do you? You want the answer here or at the discussion page? Just to be brief, it gets used in the Operation section in supporting roles, but in Construction and history it is the primary source. Operation wouldn't be harmed, but C&h would be devastated. Mostly about the Haunted House that led to the Castle, but the castle segues in through the source.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 02:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Myk Streja: Myk, I am pretty sure I saw a bunch of the information in C&H ref #3 recounted in the NFPA case study and the lawsuit. I think GoneIn60 would agree those are reliable sources. You want to have a look? Let me know if you want me to find them for you. Oddjob84 (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oddjob84: The first three paragraphs of C&H are about the Haunted House that was the predecessor of the Haunted Castle. It was the testbed for the Castle and that's why it's really the only source leading to the Castle.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 02:37, 15 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)

Here are some potential reinforcing and/or replacement references:

http://www.scfiremarshal.llronline.com/Certification/Handouts/Haunted%20Castle%20Fire.pdf (construction & operation details) http://leaderobserver.com/view/full_story/25107429/article-30-years-gone-by--but-not-forgotten?instance=home_news_1st_left (some of same material, reliable source)

Six Flags Great Adventure. Harry Applegate & Thomas Benton. 2016. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9781439656136 (book, incl pix & text of original Haunted House)

Doorway To Hell?? The Mysteries and Controversies Surrounding.... by Peter James Smith December 29th 2011 ASIN B006RD4BTU (Kindle only, includes pix, diagrams)

Oddjob84 (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I may not like it, but it looks like we'll need those.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 22:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You can cross that first source off the list. That is clearly an earlier version of the Wikipedia article and would be a form of circular sourcing. The second and third sources look fine at first glance, however, I would question the eBook, Doorway To Hell??. It doesn't have a reputable publisher listed as far as I could see, and for all we know, it could be a self-published document by the author. Google is full of those as well as Amazon, and generally those should be avoided. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 and Oddjob84: This referral by a subsidiary of USA Today seems to give Smith's book some credit. As for being self-published, well, who publishes the Encyclopedia Britannica? Just sayin'... ( I love the fact that the first item on a Google search is The Complete H.P. Lovecraft Filmography.)  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 17:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The USA Today mention is good enough for me, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm pleased one of them worked out. RE archiving: Sorry, didn't mean to archive prematurely. If you have read the previous Talk discussions for this page (and noted the scary banners above), you know this page is subject to vandalism and amateur edits. I have been working through many of the Halloween pages trying to bulletproof them, part of which involves not leaving the dirty laundry out for the trick-or-treaters. As usage on these pages heads skyward come September, I would like to see this page ready, assuming the long discussion above is history by then. Oddjob84 (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I can understand wanting to keep it neat and tidy, especially during the busy months, but I don't think we have to worry about this page. if you look at the history, there aren't many edits at all prior to your activity in late June 2017. The last non-bot edit was in December 2012. Generally, it's good etiquette to leave the last 2 or 3 threads on the page, and if vandalism were to occur, we can always protect it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Update

It's been more than a week, and the consensus at the RSN discussion seems clear and unlikely to change at this point. There are a couple sources listed above we can use in its place, but some content in the Operation and C&H sections may not survive the switch. I'll take a closer look over the next few days and assist when I have time. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, looks like it was just archived. We can considered it closed at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiProjects Amusement Parks

I had noticed that the article had a Class B rating in the WPAP banner at the top of the page, and I wondered how that happened considering the events here over the last few weeks. That is until I dug through the history and realized that the B was given unilatterally by the editor that put up the banner. Under the circumstances I believe the article should only be at Start. Any discussion?  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 18:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You're kidding. Have you looked at any Start pages lately? In the "C" to "B" range sounds right to me. Oddjob84 (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps now wasn't the best time to bring up my concerns about the rating, but I found it while researching something else, and the class ratings are supposed to be earned during a peer review. Personally, I would go with C.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 19:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is another policy I have researched. However, most of the time, a single editor can do it "in good faith". Sometimes the editor is supposed to be a member of the particular project, but then you run into these interesting things: go to the project page, it's been inactive since 2009; list your request for review, check back a month later, and find the list hasn't moved... in the last year; list your request, and it's skipped over because the guys on the page aren't interested in your article. I'm not making those up, they are all actual examples. All of this begs the question "why is that banner on my page anyway?" In these cases, I have reviewed the project's guidelines, and reviewed it myself, or deleted the banner altogether. Oddjob84 (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Myk Streja: If you really want the article to be assessed, go here and add it to the list: WP:WikiProject_Amusement_Parks/Assessment. Oddjob84 (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Now probably is not a good time for that. If we survive the GAH reliable source discussion, I'll come back to it.  — Myk Streja ^(aack!) 15:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI, anyone can assess a page regardless of what a WikiProject's guideline states. For articles an editor may have been heavily involved in creating or updating, he/she may opt to ask another editor in the project for a second set of eyes on the assessment. It's not a requirement, just a common courtesy, not to mention a good way to develop collaboration among the WikiProject's membership. Occasionally the problem, as pointed out above, is that some WikiProjects become inactive or hit a lull. In those cases, just rate the article on your own. Personally, I wouldn't have this one rated any higher than a C. For me, it's somewhere between Start and C, but C would likely be fine. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Myk Streja and GoneIn60: The three of us seem to be the only editors currently interested in this page, and I sense consensus on a "C".  Done Oddjob84 (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Myk Streja and GoneIn60: Gentlemen: After looking at and reassessing this article on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Assessment quality scale, it occurred to me to look at the importance scale. Here, I think, this article has been badly underrated. It has had a profound impact on the industry, even today, 30+ years later. Even the NFPA felt compelled to re-examine it in 2014. Here are some of the changes made to the National Fire Codes because of it. The complete report can be downloaded free from the NFPA as Haunted Castle Investigation report.pdf. Apparently even the plumbing industry is well aware of this incident.

I would support a High on the importance scale, with the only thing lacking for a Top rating being International notability (which it may have, but I have not seen anything to prove it). Oddjob84 (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's Mid at best, but most likely Low. It lacks coverage in reliable sources (one of the reasons of what led to the RSN), and many experts in the field are not likely familiar. Attractions rarely achieve higher than Mid status, unless they were a crucial part of the industry, furthering its development in some way that makes it stand on its own. This attraction seems to be more closely tied to a single incident that has come and passed, and ongoing coverage is not something that is evident at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I can see this article having a Mid rating. I'm becoming inured to the fact that the source was denied, and I've started in on the article. (Just because others have denied it doesn't mean I agree, but I will abide by the consensus.) I did the easy stuff first because the information in Operation was mostly sourced by other references. I'll dig into the harder part soon. Renaming needs to wait for now. Someone getting bold will only force a reversion and an RM discussion.  — Myk Streja ^(aack!) 22:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I could live with a Mid, but I am going to make a case for High. First, let's agree on a couple of terms. We are not discussing anything but amusement parks, so equating this to 911 or the San Francisco Earthquake is not a consideration. Next, this is about a accident, disaster or other unfortunate incident. We are not talking about which roller coaster is most notable. I can guarantee you that there is not an amusement park operator who does not know about this incident, or who has not felt its aftermath. I equally promise every fire marshal, code inspector and fire safety equipment installer knows about this, or at very least is aware the codes changed because of it. I would also point out to you that hundreds of haunted houses went out of business in the 1980s as a result of this incident. If you insist, I will provide some more references, but do start with this. And this. And this, from England. And this. In each of these lists, our present discussion is not just on the list, it is number one. Every time. Oddjob84 (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

References

@GoneIn60 and Myk Streja: To directly address your concerns: It has nothing but coverage in reliable sources for the fire. The RSN was about one reference which supported existance of the earlier attraction in the same location. Every expert in the field is aware of this. Coverage came, but has never gone. The four new references above are from 2014. The NFPA restudied and published it again in 2014 because they think it is that important. And it absolutely was and is a critical part of the industry. All of the fire and safety codes for haunted attractions and dark rides in use to this day stem from this event. Oddjob84 (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Oddjob84 All of the arguments above also indirectly indicate this article should be renamed. If this article were to be renamed to, say for instance, The Great Adventure Fire, I could see the importance level being High. I'm not afraid to admit that the fire overshadows the attraction, I just didn't want the attraction to vanish into the shadows. Unfortunately, it may go that way anyway. If it is renamed, any mention of the prior attraction would be irrelevant. Anything about the construction and operation would have to relate to how the fire killed those kids. Even though the Haunted Mansion was the reason the Haunted Castle was constructed, that will be difficult to source.  — Myk Streja ^(aack!) 00:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Myk_Streja, I'm not going to pursue a renaming at this time. The article needs to sort out its content first with proper referencing, and since it seems to still be in the early stages relatively speaking, we can worry about an RM discussion at a later date. If you want to begin one sooner rather than later, however, please do. By the way, when you use the {{u}} template, you can't stack names. {{u|GoneIn60|Oddjob84}}, for example, only pinged me but listed Oddjob84. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Oddjob84: The NFPA sources are by far the strongest of the bunch. They show the historical significance of the fire itself. I'm still not sure it's a High importance to Amusement Parks as a whole, but the importance value placed on the banner is a subjective rating anyway. It's primary impact is determining which list it's placed on within the WikiProject, and even if we get it wrong, it wouldn't have a serious impact to Wikipedia. As for the other sources (and thanks for putting forth the effort to gather these), they are generally not reliable. These sources consist primarily of web blogs and non-journalistic contribution. If you read the Terms and Conditions at each website, you'll find that content is not vetted by the publisher on any of them, and often, these lists and articles are submitted by users with no reputable credentials. One of the authors, by the way, only has his Facebook contact info posted on the site and apparently specializes in UFO and conspiracy theories (per his own description). One of his recent articles is about how Neil Armstrong was NOT the first man on the moon. That profile is a bit alarming! --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 and Myk Streja: I do agree that this article should be allowed to become what it will be before any potentially contentious changes. Myk, it would not be the worst thing if the article did eventually split, with the early history possibly going back to the parent page. I would not support deleting good information, and I think the history is important. Where it goes, that might take some discussion. GoneIn60, I knew these banner ratings were pretty subjective. I know the NFPA refs are strong, and I could probably come up with a few more equally as strong. The others, yes, they are a bit alarming, but I wasn't really trying to support a statement in an article. I was actually applying a bit of Content analysis. All four came up on the first page of a Google search. With a date of 2014, it at least tells us it's still on peoples' minds, and there probably are good references somewhere. Anyway, my point is just to advocate for the importance of this article. As a retired theme park guy, I can state that what the Iroquois Theatre fire is to fire codes in theatres and cinemas, the Haunted Castle fire is to theme parks and haunted houses. It is that important. Oddjob84 (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not going to block the change to High if you deem it as such, but the fire code is just one aspect of literally hundreds that go into the planning of an attraction. And that's just for an attraction. As far as an amusement park is concerned, this is a tiny dot on the radar. I'm not trying to belittle fire codes and fire safety practices in the industry, because obviously they are very important. It's just that in this specific case, the topic hasn't received a lot of coverage to those who aren't employed in the amusement park industry. Remember, insider knowledge is not the high-level perspective we're supporting here. We should rate articles based on how likely they will be mentioned when researching the WikiProject's main topic. So if I was writing a book or working on research dealing with the amusement park industry as a whole, how likely would the Haunted Castle appear within that publication, and how important would it be to include it? Mid importance is nothing to scoff at. It means somewhat likely, which is a very high pedestal to be placed on. High basically means it absolutely should, and Top means your work would greatly suffer without it. If there was a WikiProject or task force dedicated to the safety aspect, then this would undoubtedly be a High or Top priority. Feel free to change it though as you see fit. I've said my peace! --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the comfortable consensus is Mid at this time. Since we will inevitably review the Class C rating once the article is further along, and since we will undoubtedly have a title discussion, I think it wise to go with the lower rating, which we can review again when we have more in the article.  Done Oddjob84 (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

New Reference

Here's a new reference for research and inclusion; <nowiki><nowiki> Oddjob84 (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

References

"14 year old boy"?

Okay, so an attraction burns down and kills a group of teenagers. A 13 year old boy comes forward and says

  "uh, yeah, I met this, uh, older boy at the park entrance. He said he was 14, but he never told me his name. And then he led me into the Haunted House to, uh, show me around, and there was one dark place, so he took his lighter out and used it to find his way down the hall, but he uh, bumped into the wall at one point and the foam rubber like instantly caught on fire, so we just took off and left. I don't know where he went after that, he just disappeared"

...and the investigators totally bought this, and just said "okay, thanks for your honesty, too bad we can't find this kid. Oh well. Here's a medal for being so honest"? My first thought on hearing that is "the kid lit the place on fire, not expecting it to kill 8 people, and then made up a story about meeting some mysterious 14 year old boy to put the blame on someone else". Or perhaps the 14 year old boy DID exist, there is no way that "bumping into a wall with a lighter" would cause "foam rubber" to ignite and burn a place down. You could have a wall hung with strips of toilet paper and you'd have to work for a few moments to get the stuff to ignite enough to spread. Lighters don't just ignite everything they brush against, and if I was a boy who burned a place down and killed 8 people, I would also make up a story about some mysterious, slightly older boy who accidentally caught the place on fire and then disappeared. AnnaGoFast (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)