Jump to content

Talk:SeaWorld Orlando

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

Article revisions

[edit]

I'm trying to revise the article to be less a promotional piece and more of an informational one. I think it should describe the facilities and what's offered instead of describing the shows. I'll keep looking for more information on the park, to spruce it up. Hope others can find stuff, too!

McDoobAU93 17:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The shows are primarily what's offered. However, I agree with toning down any promotional language. Rklawton 10:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're on the same page. I attempted to emphasize the number of theatres and arenas, and then mention the current productions playing in them. I want to try and get theatre capacities, although all that's verifiable is the "maximum occupancy" signs on the theatres themselves, and that would then be WP:OR. --McDoobAU93 12:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's published (posted), verifiable, and reliable, it's not OR. Rklawton 13:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. I'll see about tracking that information down over the next few visits to the park. I've seen the occupancy signs for Shamu Stadium and Atlantis Bayside, and can probably find the others without much hassle. I'm trying to figure out how to cite that information properly. Suggestions? Looking into the future, next year is the park's 35th anniversary, so I'm hoping that some more published info comes out on the park's history so we can expand the article. Thanks for your input and guidance. --McDoobAU93 14:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Seaworldlogo.jpg

[edit]

Image:Seaworldlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Seaworld-logo.gif

[edit]

Image:Seaworld-logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Seaworld-logo.gif

[edit]

Image:Seaworld-logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your contradictory edits

[edit]

Having the article say "near Orlando" and having the category say "in Orlando" is a contradiction and UNENCYLOPEDIC VANDALISM 74.225.51.206 (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

per Wikipedia:Vandalism "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". Jeepday (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is treating the word 'in' equal to 'near' good faith? Maybe if the person is retarded or doesn't understand the most basic English prepositions 74.225.51.206 (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After you finish reading WP:RRR you might want to read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Jeepday (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's no use, Jeepday. This user is another suspected sock puppet. Each time, editors assume good faith and try and explain about how to nominate categories, consensus, etc. It hasn't taken, language gets abusive, IP gets blocked, new IP sprouts up and starts changing things again. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animal names

[edit]

I've noticed that an editor has added the names of some of the animals appearing in the park's shows and exhibits. While that information may be interesting, I'm concerned that (a) the presentation isn't consistent and (b) how do we verify them? I have no reason to believe the names aren't accurate, and definitely assume good faith on the editor who added them, and further I think that information should remain in the article. Any assistance would be very welcome. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foremost, I am sorry for the awkwardness of the article now that I added some of the other animal names. However, I have noticed in numerous SeaWorld articles all of the orcas are listed. Granted SeaWorld's ion is "Shamu," an orca, but a believe all of the other animals are just as important, especially now. I watched a National Geographic episode regarding polar bears. Due to Alaska's glaciers melting, the polar bears are swimming over 60 miles compared to the normal 15 miles, in order to obtain food. Furthermore, Alaskan natives wants to hunt polar bears, since they have been invading human communities. The polar bears and other species of animals are headed towards the extinction list. Thus, SeaWorld's other species of animals are just as important as the star of the park. After searching online, I have found some articles that verifies the names of the animals. Polar Bears: ([[1]], [[2]], and [[3]]); Beluga Whales: [[4]] and [[5]]; and Pseudorcas [[6]] and [[7]]. Furthermore, SeaWorld is obtaining a beluga calf named Maple from Marineland Ontario [[8]]. Until we can figure out a proper way to display the names of the other animals, I will work on inserting the cited information. SWF Trainer (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should add a section to the article and just include the names of the animals per location in paragraph or list form. SWF Trainer (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't disagree with that. However, it doesn't need to be in the opening section. That should be only for the introduction and any other overall pertinent information. Thanks for your assistance! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After spending hours on this project, I have created the "Animal Inventory" section. Therefore, everything that I have added to the article earlier in the day has been moved to this new section. Please take a look and modify as you see fit! Thanks! SWF Trainer (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image Image:SeaWorld Logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

past shows/rides/etc

[edit]

Other theme park articles have such a section or subsection, i can only thing of one attraction at sea world orlando that is no longer there, the Bermuda Triangle experiance ride, it was replaced by the Wild Arctic attraction some years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.138.221 (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the theme and name were the only things that changed, everything else is the same. :) --A3RO (mailbox) 16:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trainer Death

[edit]

I created a section dealing with the death of the trainer. I felt it was appropriate and will likely expand. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus for the various theme park articles (Disney, Universal, Six Flags, etc.) is that such incidents are temporary blips in the history of the park. They do occur and are tragic, but should not overpower the article. To that end, I have relocated the information to the article Incidents at SeaWorld parks and provided a link to it in the new "See also" section. This matches the format seen in most of the other park articles throughout Wikipedia. The content was moved word for word, as it was well-written and properly cited. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I readded it because Time magazine listed it at number 3 on its top 10 list of news stories for the year. Cla68 (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that there is a consensus that such incidents are temporary blips. Give me a link to the consensus.
I think that the actual WP:CONSENSUS is to keep the incidents in. The editors who want to keep it in give good reasons to keep it in according to WP policies and guidelines, and the people who want to take it out argue that they don't like it based on personal dislike, without supporting their position by citing WP policies and guidelines.
When we decide what the WP:CONSENSUS is, we consider the arguments based on WP policies and guidelines, and ignore the arguments not based on WP policies and guidelines.
I think WP:WEIGHT requires us to follow the decisions of multiple WP:RSs, and as Time says, it was a prominent story. --Nbauman (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In future, please don't mis-state why editors move things. The good reasons given have nothing to do with distate for the subject; if we disliked the subject, the article wouldn't exist at all. Consensus can just as easily be seen in how other articles on the subject are arranged (i.e., articles on other theme parks). Again, amongst the editors who frequent these articles, not just those who hop in when an incident occurs, this is the hierarchy that has been established and supported. --McDoobAU93 02:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you claim that there is a WP:CONSENSUS that such incidents shouldn't be included in this article, please give me a link to the discussion that established the WP:CONSENSUS. --Nbauman (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ask and ye shall receive. --McDoobAU93 15:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any consensus there. I see a lack of consensus, with some editors complaining about the removal of well-sourced information and other editors removing it anyway -- also without justifying it with WP policies and guidelines.
Moving disputed information to a separate article is a WP:POVFORK, which violates a WP guideline. --Nbauman (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't believe that one, then remember this ... consensus can form in one of two ways: by discussion and by editing. The former is what you're looking for; the latter is what's been happening for the past two years since you waded into this discussion previously. That's also to say nothing about the incidents that have occurred at attractions owned by Disney, Universal, Six Flags, Cedar Fair, Herschend Family Entertainment, et al both before and after February 2010. Each of these articles has been edited hundreds of times, and the hierarchy mentioned previously has NEVER been questioned. Since actions speak louder than words, that's a pretty resounding consensus, if you ask me. --McDoobAU93 18:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Reaching consensus through editing" says, "Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." These edits were disputed by many editors. I'm disputing them now. Instead of just going ahead with "actions," I'm discussing it first in Talk, because I don't want to get into an edit war. --Nbauman (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, two years after your last edit on the talk page. Apparently this hasn't been much of a concern between then and now. The last time it was dealt with was in May 2011, when the item was removed and never replaced ... again, not contested, therefore consensus was accepted. You are certainly welcome to contest it all you'd like, but in order to change consensus, you'll need to present a totally new argument. Especially since you're challenging a very basic and impartial methodology, one that has stood the test of time and is used in a wide range of related articles, with one that's very subjective and dependent on an editor's analysis (of how severe an incident is) or opinions (about what was involved in the incident). --McDoobAU93 04:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been the subject of an edit war. Whenever anybody tries to include information about the killings, somebody removes it. These articles have been edited by people who identified themselves as employees of SeaWorld, and by people who did not identify themselves but whose url has been traced back to SeaWorld. After a while, the people who want to include information about the killings have given up. Volunteers can't compete with paid employees (or enthusiastic fans). Nonetheless, there is no consensus to keep that information out of this article. It wasn't accepted. It's been continuously disputed. You can look at part of the disputes in this very section. I don't have time for an edit war now, but that's in the record. --Nbauman (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what's in the record is this. It's been added twice on occasions separated by at least a year, and in both cases it was relocated to the appropriate incidents article, completely intact, with the reasons for the relocation given and consensus cited. After the news cycle moves on to something else (usually a week or so), the discussion ended, leaving the regular editors and the previously-cited consensus. Again, this has nothing to do with it being SeaWorld and is the exact same methodology used on EVERY OTHER PARK INCIDENT SUMMARY ARTICLE here, an inconvenient truth you continue to ignore, unfortunately. If you have proof that regular editors of these articles are indeed SeaWorld Parks employees, please feel free to provide your evidence, including diffs of the edits allegedly made by SeaWorld staff, diffs of said editors outing themselves as park employees and IP traces routing back to computers owned by SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment (or its predecessor, Busch Entertainment). --McDoobAU93 22:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/technology/19wikipedia.html --Nbauman (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting story ... too bad it's 5 years old, thus completely out of date because the article has been edited dozens of times since then by anonymous users and registered editors. Further, you're making a very broad indictment that current facts do not support. This would be akin to accusing Barack Obama of endorsing slavery since he's president of a country that engaged in it at some point in its history. Again, please provide diffs of specific edits made on this particular subject that came from SeaWorld Parks employees. --McDoobAU93 23:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, could you please confirm that you are not an employee or contractor of SeaWorld or any related company, and that you are not receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia for them? --Nbauman (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's easily done ... I do not and have not worked for SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment or its predecessor, Busch Entertainment Corporation, or any of its corporate parents, Anheuser-Busch InBev (former) and The Blackstone Group (current). I do not and have not worked for any other organization that operates theme parks, including but not limited to Six Flags, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Universal Parks and Resorts, Cedar Fair, Herschend Family Entertainment and/or Parques Reunidos. I have not ever, nor will I ever, accept monetary or other benefits from any person or organization in exchange for favorable edits to articles about themselves, as that would be a conflict of interest. Now, those diffs, if you please? --McDoobAU93 14:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Format for Rides Section

[edit]

I wanted to get other editors' thoughts on the new format for the Rides Section. While I appreciate editors trying to make improvements to the article I do not understand this edit. The Tables do not seem to have any rhyme or reason to them. They are not in alphabetical order or chronological order. I am not seeing the usefulness of this change. I would appreciate others' thoughts on the new format. Viewmont Viking (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tilikum

[edit]

Independent section well-founded for Tilikum after 3 deaths now. These are rare and unusual incidents, and have been highly publicized. --Oaktreebay (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this done to add information to the article, or to push a particular point of view in regards to animals in captivity? The animal has its own article where all these matters are discussed, which includes a link to its home facilities over the years. Thus, this segment is simply repeating information and is superfluous to the article. In future, please discuss matters on the talk page first before re-adding potentially controversial content. For additional information, please read this discussion. --McDoobAU93 23:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just made an edit that reduces the amount of weight given to the subject (per WP:UNDUE) and yet provides the controversial information, as well as a link to the animal's separate article on Wikipedia. This would allay my concerns about your addition. --McDoobAU93 23:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Compromise- These major events that seaworld orlando is now well known for and highly publicized. I have interest in the history of Tilikum only. --Oaktreebay (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bands, brews,&BBQ's

[edit]

SeaWorld partners with favorite local restaurants to bring sizzling BBQ and an array of thirst-quenching beer in an amazing atmosphere. And of course, incredible concerts with top artists in classic rock and country music. Bands, Brew & BBQ is included with park admission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.205.118 (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restrictions on trainer proximity

[edit]

After the death of trainer Dawn Brancheau in 2010, OSHA has slapped restrictions on the proximity of Seaworld's trainers to the killer whales, in addition to finding the park negligent and slapping it with a large fine. The appeal of that decision is taking place this week: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Based on the media coverage, a separate article on the case, titled SeaWorld of Florida v. Thomas E. Perez, No. 12-1375, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit might be justified with a paragraph or two introduction and link to it in this article. Cla68 (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In violation of WP's guidelines, some keeps reverting my addition of the barrier restriction from the article. As what I said above indicates, the sourcing is solid. Cla68 (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
McDoob said that the documentary Blackfish was "not a reliable source." It's produced by CNN for pete's sake. How about a little cooperation here, gents, and a little less edit warring and wikilawyering? This is why WP is slowly dying. Cla68 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CNN's credibility has taken no small number of hits over the last few years. The information was re-added with less sensationalism and less bias, using the coroner's report where the bulk of this information was originally located, in Tilikum's article. --McDoobAU93 21:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using the documentary Blackfish as source

[edit]

Hi. While we could absolutely use Blackfish as a source for things such as the general narrative of the documentary in our article for it, or perhaps for uncontroversial facts described by it, it's a bit offputting to see multiple attempts put in to use this documentary as a source for the somewhat gory details of a trainers death. I don't believe we can consider this film a reliable source for it, and should strive to be using secondary sources for it or high quality primary sources (such as the coroner's report already included.) Cla68, why do you believe that it's necessary to use this film as a source in this article? What content could we add with it that we cannot source to something else that is more reliable? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on SeaWorld Orlando. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 02:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on SeaWorld Orlando. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mimes

[edit]

Not sure where in the article, but may be worth adding something about the mimes:

Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SeaWorld_Orlando&oldid=1195608067"