Talk:Funland, Rehoboth Beach


Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware)

This is a talk page to talk bout the editing of the Funland Rehoobth Beach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.147.41 (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on editing the page to include more information about the park, including history, current and previous ticket information, making the ride chart more organized, adding in some rides that were missing from the chart, and making a section about the their most popular and famous ride. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still recommend removing the Tickets and Haunted Mansion section. It's too much detail, especially the ticket section, which is not relevant for an encyclopedia --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 07:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Tickets section is good for history of the prices have changed over time. I get it that it’s more of history of the ticket pricing, but I don’t think that fits under the history section. Still, I think it’s good for documentation purposes over time. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the errors requested to be corrected. If there's any others needed to be corrected, please let me know so I can correct them. I would like to add a few pictures to the article but it won't let me do upload it, so if somebody is will to add it, please let me know as well, and I'll give you the link of the pic, or pics that I think should be added in. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were told above that the Haunted Mansion section had too much detail. Your ignored than, then reverted my removal of it. As written, it is unencyclopedic. The article should SUMMARIZE what other sources say. This appears to be you own narrative and written in more detail than any source. MB 21:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this material was written more like a travel guide than an encyclopedia article and agree with its removal. For the same reason, I removed a lot of material in the History section about operating hours. I checked other articles about major amusement parks: Disneyland, Disney World, Knott's Berry Farm and Six Flags Over Texas. None of them mention anything about operating hours. CodeTalker (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the information and the research you did. Not sure why those don’t have when they’re open. Would’ve thought they would’ve as it’s beneficial info to the readers in case these articles get readers attention and convince them to check out the park. I don’t see how this info hurts anything. I’ll do some research of my own and see if this the only park that has that. If it is, I’ll adjust that section accordingly to mirror the other parks formats. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Haunted Mansion section is important due to it being the ride they are known for. The source for the ride trough section is videos of the ride that were made. I think if we can’t agree on if the ride through section should say, we should let Funland decide as it’s their ride. That’s I think the best way to settle this dispute. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody owns any article in Wikipedia, and Funland has no more, in fact less edited per comment below say than any editor in this discussion. Youtube is an unreliable source - and writing a summary of the ride based on those videos is original synthesis. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 01:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I included the videos as it’s the best source that’s up to date on the ride. I’ve ridden it countess times and have it completely memorized. I included them so people could prod check it they wanted to. There was a website walkthrough tour done in 1999, but the 1999 tour is heavily outdated and is missing the newer editions and stuff that was replaced. I can cite that as well, but it would contradict most of what the ride is like now, and what I wrote in the ride through section. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) That is absolutely NOT the way to settle this. The subject of an article no more authority to decide the content of articles than other editors do, in fact less. Haunted Mansion is indeed Funland's ride, but this article belongs to Wikipedia, not Funland, and its content is determined by Wikipedia policies, not by the wishes of Funland's management. By the way, if you have a personal connection to Funland in any way, you must disclose it. See WP:COI. CodeTalker (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No personal connection, just a fan of the park. What I meant by asking the park is if they even want the ride through in the article. They might say they’d rather not have it in there as it could hurt their business. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is still no consensus to restore the tickets and Haunted Mansion sections. I have no objections to the updated ride table, but the paragraphs in the history section, the entire ticket section, and Haunted Mansion section, are unencyclopedic. And please, do not bring this dispute to other wikis such as the Simple English Wikipedia. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 01:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to bring dispute there. I’m just trying to have the same article, but with simplified wording. Sorry if the sections don’t sound encyclopedic. Thought they were good sections. If somebody wants to adjust the wording of those sections to make them sound more encyclopedic, that’s totally fine. I just don’t want to have important information removed, or have part of a section there, and then the other part missing. Makes no sense. Also, generally speaking, doesn’t it make sense for people that know the park to put the important stuff bout it an article, as people that don't know much if anything bout whatever subject matter they’re editing, might not realize some info in the article is actually important to the article itself? Not trying to be argumentative or anything, just trying to understand. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They might say they’d rather not have it in there as it could hurt their business. That is completely irrelevant. As has been explained, the subject of an article has no authority to dictate its contents, even if they don't like it. CodeTalker (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They might not have the right to, as I’m sure a bunch of articles are written bout places, that the place isn’t happy bout, but it’s still nice to give a place input and respect their wishes if possible. Isn’t the whole point of these pages to help promote and or educate people about various topic, places, etc? 108.48.147.41 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t the whole point of these pages to help promote ... No it is not. See WP:PROMOTION. CodeTalker (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested more input on this dispute at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks. CodeTalker (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this is a pretty good idea, as then people in the same boat as us for the most part, except for having more experience with this to judge what makes sense and what doesn’t. I’m not trying to say I’m an expert and know what should be in this, as I’m not. I’m just going with my gut and what I think is important. Not everybody feels the same though, so that’s why it’s good to try to get experts to help us out. Thanks. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Advice given to IP
:::Hello, I saw the message on WP:APARKS and thought I could input. My opinion regarding the above back-and-forth:
  • I do not think IP was entirely wrong in video transcribing, as an featured article nominator best explained regarding YouTube point of view (POV) sources for attractions: ...This is POV of the ride. It can't be fake/modified. I don't think it should be removed because it provides the most detailed info about the layout. Also, I don't think it is OR by translating a video into words because the video clearly supports if the train is making a left or right (just as an example). Finally, YouTubes POV's are used in virtually ever roller coaster article that has a layout section via User:Dom497 (2013). Physical proof is verifiable, however, POVs should also be paired with a reliable source (such as Roller Coaster DataBase or newspaper articles) to describe more detail outside a simple "left or right turn" and should only be summarized in a paragraph or less. Moreover, "Ride experiences" are better suited for an individual attraction's article, not for the amusement park's main article. Only a simple description of the ride is needed (2-3 sentences preferably).
  • With this diff, I think the current additions to the Haunted House give WP:UNDUE weight towards an attraction and diminishes the importance of other attractions. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Standards.
  • If you want to include ticket prices, I would only stick to mentioning (if at all) the first historic ticket price in the history section, not in a section by itself. Subsequent mentions of raising ticket prices are not necessary. The history section is mainly used as its namesake intends, to tell the overall story of the amusement park, not just its prices. See Warner Bros. Movie World or Idlewild and Soak Zone as quality amusement park examples.
  • As Wikipedia editors, we have no duty to any parks wishes about what content is on their article. I am personally a fan of Busch Gardens Tampa Bay (as my user page notes with the Good Article's I have written about their roller coasters) and look favorably upon their attractions (namely Iron Gwazi, in real life its thrill). However, it is important to note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (WP:5P1). We should not host an indiscriminate amount of information about subject areas, seek to promote, or guide prospective park guests. Content should be written in a neutral point of view and opinions given proper WP:DUE weight in a "Reception" section. You are 100% allowed to edit an article you are a fan of, and its encouraged as you may have more knowledge in the subject's area. Though, it is discouraged if you are being paid to edit.
Everyone's input is appreciated and their research. However, in the article's current form, it does need to be rewritten because of its unencyclopedic tone. Suggestions, follow what I have stated above and: cut info about times, prices, and better summarize. Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate all your feedback and think it makes sense. I’m not able to create new pages and I thought it looked good when I had edited it this way. Can you edit it based on what you’re talking bout and create the page bout The Haunted Mansion with the walkthrough edited however it’s supposed to look please? 108.48.147.41 (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do also want to remind the IP about Conflict of Interest (COI) that was inadvertently declared via WP:EXTERNALREL. If you would like feedback about your edits if and when you decide to come back, please do so on the talk page (using this Template:Request edit) and do not continue to revert; as reverting 3 times or more will be causation for a block. We as Wikipedians would love to help, but consensus needs to be created before including edited information. Adog (Talk・Cont) 23:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no conflict of interest. I just know a lot bout the park and it seems none of you know anything about it. As such it’s hard to know what’s important and what’s not. That’s where people like me that do know bout the park come in. It’s almost impossible to reach consensus with people that no nothing about the subject in question as they don’t know whats important bout the subject. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I understand where you are coming from and how strongly you feel about the subject. The thing is, every day lots of users on Wikipedia edit in areas they know little-to-nothing about or write in topic areas where they have slight interests and hobbies. Heck, I have written several good articles about roller coasters I have never been on, theme parks I have never gone to, and subjects not even in my degree field (political science). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means articles need to be written in an encyclopedic tone. Encyclopedic tone means content on Wikipedia should be neutral, not promotional in any way, and not a travel guide for people, among other standards.
Wikipedia:Writing better articles is a great web page I recommend reading about how to write on Wikipedia. Wikipedia uses a different writing standard than publishers/newspapers/academic journals/primary sources/etc. so do keep that in mind. Adog (Talk・Cont) 23:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say people that don't know anything, or very minimal bout a subject, I'm just saying that shouldn't remove stuff that other editors put in (especially if the editor has credible sources backing up what they put in there). Now of course, if there's grammatical issues, typos, or it's not written in the right format, then of course other editors should be able to fix those errors, rewrite the wrong stuff in the correct format, etc. All I'm saying is, they shouldn't remove the info put in their if they're not positive that its useless.
In this specific articles case, if it's not written correctly, then re write it in the correct format, but keep don't just remove the Tickets and Haunted Mansion sections all together, as it's evident the people that removed it before, don't realize why they're open to the article. Those sections should be restored, however I see nothing wrong with making them sound better or look better if stuff is wrong with various stuff in the article.
I'm not trying to be bias towards the place, I just know a ton about this park, and have done plenty of research prior to putting this information in the article, to make sure everything I put in is accurate. I apologize if it's' not encyclopedic, but that doesn't warrant deletion, it warrants somebody editing t he work to make it sound right, but keeping it in the article. Believe me, people that love places they're writing about, aren't going to put in information that they can't backup. With that being said, they're are a few things I didn't put in the article, for example incidents, I didn't think they were that big a deal for the article, however if you all think I should add it in, I will.
While Wikipedia isn't solely meant to promote a place, isn't it meant to educate people on it, and sometimes that means to catch the interest of the reader and maybe even convince them to check out the place for themselves? I could be wrong on this, but that's what I thought Wikipedia is for. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Educate? Yes. Convince? No. Since that would not be a neutral tone. Content should be informative, not an elevator pitch to go visit so-and-so. If visitors want to go visit a place based on a Wikipedia article, that is of their free will. However, that is not our job as volunteers to convince them.
I would recommend you make the corrections based on our guidance through this talk page (and visit the policy links and read them). Then with the revised edits, use Template:Request edit on the talk page here to request comments to create consensus. Unfortunately, the ticket and ride section are the edits with flashing problems, as the ticket section is essentially a WP:TRAVELGUIDE, and the Haunted Mansion has too much detail for a reliable source to cover and falls into original research-territory.
Editors can and will remove edits that do not align with our policies and yes it does hurt sometimes when that happens. You take time, effort, energy for all of it to be deleted. However, that is what the learning curve is for and content that is "deleted" is always on the page history if you want to recover and re-write it.
Again, I implore you to read some of our policies listed on the talk page, re-write the sections in accordance with a neutral tone, and then post a request for comments to build consensus to include said information. :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 13:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. I see your concern with the Tickets and Haunted Mansion sections. I can assure you though, the tickets section is completely backed up and sourced from the book Land of Fun, and re used that source for each section of the tickets to make sure people knew that. Although, I’m thinking I should maybe change it to a chart list. Think that would be better?
As for The Haunted Mansion section, I named sure I put some ride through that I filmed last year in which you can see everything to confirm everything I said in is accurate. I did wait to put the sources till the end of the walk through. Would it be better if I kept resourcing them after each paragraph like the ticket sources are on the most recent update? Your help is much appreciated. Thank you for being so friendly, and having a rational conversation to try to sort this out. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With how the Haunted Mansion section was presented before, it had excessive and unnecessary details, something not normally seen in other theme park articles. Trimming it down would be fine - it can be included as a subsection in the Rides and attractions section. As for the ticket section, a paragraph summarizing how the price changes can do. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t call the details in the Haunted Mansion part, unnecessary, but when ending re opens to the public, I’ll change the ticket section just a chart of the bundles and the prices so it takes less space. I’ll also see if I can try to shorten the Haunted Mansion section somewhat as well. I’ll get that done in the evening of when it unlocks, however I won’t have time at the exact unlock time, so at that time, I’ll restore the other version TEMPORARILY, till I have the time in the evening to update it. Various other stuff will need some tweaking as well by then, so I’ll take care of the tweaks and changes that evening. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We appreciate the fruitful discussion :). On my advice, I would not restore it until you have time to edit it. It would probably be reverted by a page watcher familiar or a passerby not familiar with this talk page discussion (as it is rather lengthy). When you do have time, place Template:In use at the top of the page to indicate you are working on it, and remove the template when you are done. Otherwise, you can request comments here and work on it now rather than wait till later. Up to you though. Adog (Talk・Cont) 18:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't really edit it now as it's locked. That's why I can't edit it now, otherwise I would. I also can't edit it right when it unlocks cause I won't be on my computer, so that's why a restore would be the temporary option. I was just there earlier for their opening day, and learned some info that hasn't been officially posted online yet, and their website isn't even updated to display all of it yet either. It's regarding the rides. How's the best way to put it in the article when all I have is confirmation from multiple Funland employees, but nothing to show in writing. The issue is a few rides leaving, a new ride coming, an I even know the name before it's even made public. I went there earlier to make a opening day vlog which is where I learned this information. However I wasn't recording at the time I had the conversations. Can you provide me how I should proceed with this info, so this page can be reliable? 108.48.147.41 (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protection ended, and 10 minutes later the material was restored yet again. Meters (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted and IP warned again (COI IP has previously been blocked for this edit). Meters (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see the IP has been posting about this above, and was told not to restore the material until it could be worked on. Restoring contested material with a vague promise to fix it later (in two days) is not acceptable. Meters (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Had to be restored as it was missing important information on the park. Reason article can’t be edited for a bit is cause a source I need to authenticate some information on the new ride isn’t published yet. Unless you people want information that doesn’t have a reliable source, figured it’s best to wait to edit till the source is published. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Meters, there is consensus here that the content added was unencyclopedic, and should not be added back as-is. The previous issues addressed by multiple editors still have not been addressed. The ticket section can be summarized in a single paragraph, if necessary. The haunted mansion sections carry undue weight, it is too much detail for the article. Please do not restore the contested version again. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 00:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the article is protected again, for two months this time. Meters (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP states that he will continue the edit war after protection ends, and sock if blocked [1]. Meters (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is solely based on that nobody else seems to know anything bout the park. I get people that know nothing bout a subject may think something in an article is useless or junk, but at the same time, if a person doesn't know anything about it, they can't really judge. Yes, they can say they think it might not matter or isn't important, but just as far as what is and isn't important, only people that know about a subject would know for sure what is or isn't important. Also, just to clarify, in case there is any confusion, I'm referring to any topic, not just Funland. However, in this particular case, it certainly seems to apply. If I'm mistaken with my insinuation bout none of you knowing anything bout nor ever visiting Funland, then correct me and I'll take back what I said. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IF you had read what I put in the initial revert, you'd see that I was going to edit the tickets section into a chart as I think think makes more sense based on looking at other articles. I also stated in that revert, that I was gonna review the Haunted Mansion section and try to condense it. Do you people even read the rationale on what and why people change things? In certainly doesn't seem like it. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COI

COI discussion

We have tip-toed around the COI issue in the previous thread without reaching any conclusion. Having read through all of the refs of the current version and the very long and un-encyclopaedic version, what emerges is a heavy reliance on one publication. This is a vanity publication with no editorial oversight. Searching on the author reveals a great deal of effort to promote this book and I believe that it is very likely that the COI here relates to the book and not to the park itself. It is a difficult book to find in a readable format in any library system so I have been unable to compare writing styles, but my guess would be that the IP is either the author, a family member or a close associate. I believe that what is needed is a clear rebuttal by the IP that they are not connected to the book or its author in any way.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The IP does not have to tell us who they are, but they do need to confirm or deny any connection to the book or its author. Note that the author of the source book is "former Funland employee Chris Lindsley" and the publisher of the book is "Lindsley Publishing" (per the reference as given in the article). The name Lindsley is not common, so the coincidence of the name seemed unlikely, and I found no record of such a publishing company. I checked further, and Chris Lindsley's Linked In page https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrislindsley states that he "wrote, self-published and marketed the book "Land of Fun: The Story of An Old-Fashioned Amusement Park for the Ages" (the source in question). The book is self published and thus is not a reliable source, regardless of whether the IP is associated with Chris Lindsley.
Aside from the question of any book COI, the IP has stated that they know the owner of the park [2], which suggests a conflict of interest in this article in general. Meters (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I cited the source Land of Fun is because that's where I got most of the information that I put in the article. I know when you put information bout something, you have to prove it, so I put that in as proof that what I put in the article is true. As for Lindsley Publishing, I literally know nothing bout that. When I was filling out the source info for each book source, it asked for the publisher, so I just looked to see who it was and inserted that in. Besides that, I don't know anything else. I assume that it's a publishing company founded by Chris Lindsley that he used solely for the purpose of publishing the book, but this I can't confirm unfortunately. I can confirm though that he is a former employee that took the time to get a whole bunch of information bout the park to write the book as no book had ever been written bout Funland till this book came out.
As for knowing the owner of the park, I don't know them personally, as they're not a friend or anything. I know them cause I looked into who the owner was, and when I was there I asked if I got talk to them to tell them that I was big fan of the park and liked the book that was written bout it. I have no connections to the park or the book besides being a big fan of Funland and talking to the owner as well as some of the family that owns the park.
The reason I put all information in bout the tickets for example is due to no other park having that sorta pricing, so I thought it was unique with how it started, as well as how it still is now. The Haunted Mansion section was added solely because that is the ride Funland is most known for, so because of it being the main attraction of the park, it needed to be included. Hope this helps clarify. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised that the book is hard to find in libraries as I think it's mostly just sold in Rehoboth. I'm not sure on that though. As for my relationship to the author, I don't have any. I've written the author in the past to to tell them that I'm a fan of the book, but besides that, I've never had any interaction with him. You want a clear rebuttal that I'm not connected to the book? I can confirm this. I'm a big fan of the Amusement Park, as it's my favorite Amusement Park, so I wanted to provide a bunch of important information on it to help inform people bout it, as it's not known that widely. Besides people from the east coast, not many people know bout it. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but as I explained above, we cannot use a self-published book as a reliable source. See WP:RS/SPS. I see no evidence that that author is an established expert on the subject matter, so that exception does not apply.
You have been told multiple times by more than one editor that this material is not acceptable. Please retract your threat to continue the edit war after protection ends and to sock if you are blocked. My WP:AGF is done. Meters (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the page you gave bout self published content, and if you read the book, you'd know that Chris Lindsley worked at Funland for a period of time a while ago, and when he decided to write this book, he did extensive interviews with the family that owns Funland to make sure he got all the correct information Based on this, he is an expert on Funland. If you don't believe me, feel free to call Funland and ask them if everything is verified because I can say for a fact based on reading this book and seeing a bunch of interviews with him, that everything got confirmed prior to the book being published, so this exception most certainly does apply.
As for your request for me to stop making sure the page is correct, the only way that threat will be retracted is if the page no longer exists. As long as the page exists, I will be monitoring it closely, making adjustments to the page whenever it's outdated, and making sure all important information of Funland is on it. As for if its protected, I will be keeping a close eye on protection expiration and making corrections as soon as protection expires.
I don't see why you people care. The page is to educate people on this great park, so the more info people have, the better. With that being said, there were a few incidents that happened there as well that were never added to the article. I can add a section talking bout those just to prove I'm not only trying to say positive stuff bout Funland. I didn't include it initially due to thinking it might not be necessary, but looking back at it now, I think I should add that in when protection ends as well, just so it doesn't look like I'm only trying to state positive stuff and omit the negative. I'm aware that both should be in the article, so I'm totally open to and thinking I should probably add the incident section in. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To quote WP:RS/SPS- Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. Not only does the author's LinkedIn profile clearly indicate that heself-published the book, there is a COI in that the author was a former employee of the park. They are not established as an expert in theme parks. If they were, then the guideline is more lenient - Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. The exception does not apply.
As for why we care? Because we are not only editors, but also readers. When I stumbled upon the article, I noticed that there were sections written in excessive detail. Is more info always better? Not necessarily.
the only way that threat will be retracted is if the page no longer exists. I find this unacceptable. Not only did you not heed to the advice given here, you also threaten to continue disrupting the encyclopedia, as soon as protection expires. --*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 09:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my bad, I should've clarified what I meant when I say they were an expert. I was specifically saying that he is an expert as far as the Funland Amusement Park, not all Amusement Parks. I don't know what his expertise on any other Amusement Park. I imagine he might know some stuff bout other Amusement Parks, but I doubt it's nearly as much as Funland. With that being said, that's why it qualifies as far as this article. Have you even read the book? I think you you'd better understand if you read it.
As far as the excessive detail, OK, I'll give you that, there are some exceptions to when too much detail might not be needed. The Haunted Mansion for example, under general circumstances, I'd agree and be like, why are we giving so much attention to a single ride? However, if you do research, you'd see there are plenty of articles talking bout how special and unusual this ride is, and it was if not still is ranked in the top 10 dark rides in the country. There's even an article in The Washington Post about (not the park) the ride. That's why I gave so much weight to it. I tried to provide that as sources in the article, but I guess you didn't look into them.
I'm not trying to say, any edit made is gonna be removed. That's not what I'm trying to say at all. You and other editors have said, the writing isn't encyclopedic. OK, that's fine, rather than just revert and remove the stuff, go through it and change it to sound encyclopedic, without removing any of the important details. I understand this is an encyclopedia, not a journal or a diary, and I'm not gonna revert that. I've only been reverting as you people have either completely removed a full section that I needed to reinstate, or as far as the Haunted Mansion, a few times, half the ride through was there, but then it ended right in the middle of it. You can't have a incomplete ride through of a ride. It just doesn't make sense. That's all I'm saying. If you're passionate about something, you wanna protect it. That's all I'm trying to do, make sure Funland gets the attention it deserves.
The edit war, or disrupting the encyclopedia as you people are calling it, is how you look at it. I look at it as just trying to protect the article and make sure nothing important is missing, not an edit war or disruption. If we're going based on you people's logic though with calling it an edit war, then of course the war wages on as the only way to end a war is with a treaty, and we've not reached that, at least not to this point, so it's inevitable, that the war must wage on.
Let me end this message with a metaphor, like I said, I don't own, or work at Funland, and I don't have connection to it besides being a big fan of the park. Because of this, the metaphor doesn't completely fit as technically speaking I have no obligation to protect Funalnd as I'm not being asked to, paid to etc. I'm doing it outta my own free will. With that being said, if somebody is going after your property, a friend or family member, stuff you care about, wouldn't you wanna do everything in your power to protect the person, place, thing, etc from the threat or danger? I'm not trying to be a jerk, (although I get the sense all of you think I am). All I'm trying to do is protect Funland and give it the love and attention it deserves. I admit, I love the park, and I make content of it on my channel to show off and promote it, but is there anything wrong with just trying to protect something you care deeply about? I don't see anything wrong with that.
I understand that you guys are looking at it in a different way, but if you look at it from my perspective for a moment, you see where I'm coming from? I'm not sure if you guys don't understand, or just simply don't care. I hope this came off the right way, but this is my true feelings, and maybe I should've been this assertive from the start, but I didn't think I needed to. and maybe that was a mistake on my end. I can assure you though, what I just stated is my only intentions, and if you guys can't either understand or respect that, then I'm sorry, but it is what it is. I don't know how else to put it. I do hope we come to a resolution, but if not, then I guess we're in for an indefinite edit war. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of edit warring is to repeatedly override other's contributions in disagreement. Restoring the changes you have made, even though multiple editors here have expressed objections against it, is edit warring.
Yes, I read the sources for the Haunted House section. The Washington Post article was written by Chris Lindsley, the writer of the aforementioned book. The Washingtonian article may also be connected to the book. I'm still unsure about a few things here. Where was it rated among the top 10 rides? What was the criteria of this list? (top 10 in the US? Delaware?)
Wouldn't you wanna do everything in your power to protect the person, place, thing, etc from the threat or danger? Yes, but there was no danger nor threat in us reverting your edits. None of us were trying to vandalize the article, introduce false information to the article, or defame the subject of the article.
I don't know how else to put it. I do hope we come to a resolution, but if not, then I guess we're in for an indefinite edit war. This is not how consensus building works. Multiple editors have shown objections to your edit, and continuing to edit war indefinitely may result in further editing restrictions. Yes, you can be deeply passionate about a subject. You can edit articles about things that you deeply care about. Still, there are guidelines and policies to be followed when editing articles, such as using encyclopedic tone, or what Wikipedia is not. --*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 11:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in the response. I had to find where I saw the information on the Haunted Mansion ranking. After doing some digging I was able to re find it. It’s ranked by Bret Malone, https://www.laffinthedark.com/articles/funland/hm.htm, and The Dark Attraction and Funhouse Enthusiasts (DAFE), which is a non profit organization that solely documents dark rides and funhouses by doing surveys. Here’s the link to all their surveys to back up what I’m saying bout them https://www.dafe.org/surveys.html. For more info on who they are I’ve also provided their about us page https://www.dafe.org/about.html. Hope this is enough verification for you.
While I agree you weren’t trying to defame Funland, you guys were trying to take away what it is famous for. That’s what I’m referring to when I’m saying protecting it.
I’d like us all to agree, that would make this a whole lot easier for all of us, however, don’t think you guys are able to judge what’s important bout Funland, as you don’t know enough bout the park. Nothing wrong with that, you guys just aren’t educated enough on it. The reason the edit war would be indefinite is because people always say, you gotta fight for what’s right, and that’s all I’m doing, fighting for what’s right. As for it not sounding encyclopedic, I’ve said this multiple times now, but I’ll say it again, I’m not saying don’t edit the article, I’m just saying, if you do, mainly focus on grammatical errors like bad wording, extra words, typos, etc. Of course, because this is an encyclopedia, if what I’m saying doesn’t sound encyclopedic, don’t remove the stuff, change the working to make it sound right. That’s all I’m trying to say.
I looked at the book again as I hadn’t read it in a while, and I actually realized that I should’ve actually added in a bit better information on the construction of the ride, so that will be fixed when editing unlocks again. I’ll still try to condense the ride through part a bit if possible, but due to the additional info, even with the condense, they may level each other out size wise, might even be a bit longer. I’ll try to make it short, but don’t know how much that will help or how much I’ll actually be able to condense either. I’ll still try to though.
Let me know if you have any other questions, and I’ll try to answer them the best I can. Thanks for the polite discussion. Hopefully it’s helping us understand each others intentions better. 2600:1003:B00C:94D7:94B3:B000:8255:A350 (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ot sure why my IP address came up different. I typed this on my phone on Wi-Fi. like I’ve posted using my phone on Wi-Fi though, so not sure why my IP came out differently this time. Wasn’t trying to hide it. This is 108.48.147.41 though just to clarify who this is. 2600:1003:B00C:94D7:94B3:B000:8255:A350 (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh.... Please, please read all the above threads. No matter what it says in the now deleted ref, that ref is unreliable as a source, as are the two further refs you have just linked. To include material that may be contentious (and we have clearly established that the content you want to include is contentious) it must be supported by independent and reliable sources. Blogs, fandom and self published books are not acceptable. Even if such sources can be found, the content must also be encyclopaedic and not be trivial. If you try to re-ignite this edit war, it is likely that your IP addresses may be blocked or page protection may be extended for a much longer period or both. Please just stop.  Velella  Velella Talk   06:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the sources that were just provided in my most recent reply, those sources have nothing to do with the book. They are independent sources. You people asked for evidence, I provided the evidence. Not sure what else there is that could be provided. Those surveys are official surveys. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection

Because we have an IP editor here who has repeatedly promised to edit disruptively and to edit against consensus, I have semi-protected the article indefinitely. Problem solved. Cullen328 (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least for now. Keep in mind as long as the page exists, I’ll be keeping an eye out to see if it ever unlocks, and will fix it if if ever does. Also, I know this is gonna get blocked as well, but just wanted to put this out there so you’ll know. I have a feeling eventually, likely not anytime soon, but eventually it’ll likely be unlocked and I’ll be waiting for that. 2601:152:307:4913:D8EE:36FF:B7F4:417A (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3003:2f02:ed00:416c:32e8:9e34:82aa (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite in this case means pretty much forever, because of the ongoing determined disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know what indefinite means. None of this helps the fact that the page is still heavily outdated. It has rides that aren't at the park anymore, and is missing a new ride that was added to the park. I don't know how this is supposed to be corrected, when it seems nobody here seems to know anything about the park, or is even updating the page. Doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. 2600:4040:21D9:C700:CCC5:6F89:5553:AC56 (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you provide a reliable source and request an edit then? I've checked the park's own site and it is self-contradictory. It currently claims to have 20 rides, but only lists 18. Meters (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure why the website does that. I think count the Jungle of Fun, (a kids play area), in that count. The best souruce to compare this list, to the current list on the page is https://funlandrehoboth.com/rides. As you should be able to notice, the Freefall, and Simrider are now gone, and the Freefall was replaced with the Free Spin. Another good reference to see the most update to date information would be another version of the article https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funland,_Rehoboth_Beach. I also think it would make sense to remove the word Delaware from the page, as it may be a bit confusing to some people if it has that in there. 2600:4040:21D9:C700:706B:C4A2:C2A9:B1B0 (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for the years that were listed in the chart from the other version, it's sorta hard to source that. Some of the inofrmation was from the "Land of Fun" book, and other parts were from talking to a family member that ownns the park. For some reason, the book had some inaccurate information about some of the older rides. Not sure exactly how, as it was written by a former employee of the park. As for how I talked to the family member that owns the park, that's because I've been working on a big project for the park, which will be dropping on my channel throughout the parks next season. I've done plenty of research on this to make sure I had it right. I can provide all the info that I got better when the big project begins to come out. Wish I was able to cite my sources better for it, but I sourced them the best I could in the other article I linked above. Let me know if you have any more questions. 2600:4040:21D9:C700:706B:C4A2:C2A9:B1B0 (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Funland,_Rehoboth_Beach&oldid=1207330202"