Talk:Haunted Castle (Six Flags Great Adventure)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)